FRITTS v. HANKINS BROS.

Annotate this Case

FRITTS v. HANKINS BROS.
1935 OK 799
49 P.2d 508
173 Okla. 475
Case Number: 25467
Decided: 09/17/1935
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

FRITTS
v.
HANKINS BROS. et al.

Syllabus

¶0 MASTER AND SERVANT--WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION -- Appeal From Order Refusing Award Abandoned by Filing Action in District Court--Dismissal of Appeal.
Where a proceeding is brought in this court to review the award of the State Industrial Commission refusing to grant an award, and the petitioner thereafter files an action in the district court and a motion to dismiss is filed herein calling attention to such action and alleging that the proceeding herein has been abandoned, and this court calls for a response to said motion, which is not filed, the proceeding will be dismissed as having been abandoned in this court.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by Tom Fritts to review an order refusing an award by the State Industrial Commission. Dismissed.

Leo J. Williams and Paul L. Arnold, for petitioner.
Rittenhouse, Lee, Webster & Rittenhouse, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Houston W. Reeves, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is an original proceeding by Tom Fritts to review the order of the State Industrial Commission refusing to make an award in his favor against the respondents Hankins Brothers, Commercial Standard Insurance Company, and State Industrial Commission of Oklahoma.

¶2 A motion to dismiss has been filed herein under date of June 5, 1935, in which it is alleged that the petitioner has filed in the district court of Oklahoma county a civil action against the Commercial Standard Insurance Company upon the policy of Workmen's Compensation Insurance issued to the respondent Hankins Brothers, and by said action seeks judgment in the district court of said county for the same injuries for which claimant has petitioned this court, and that thereby he has abandoned this proceeding.

¶3 This court called for a response under date of June 18, 1935, and no response has been filed.

¶4 It appears, therefore, that the merits of the motion are intended to be confessed. The proceeding is dismissed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.