Adams v. Norton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Adams v. Norton

1914 OK 74, 139 P. 254, 41 Okla. 497, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 168

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 28, 1914

Docket3017

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1914 OK 74 (Adams v. Norton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Norton, 1914 OK 74, 139 P. 254, 41 Okla. 497, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 168 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

SHARP, C.

Plaintiff in error, in her petition in error, assigns errors committed by the trial court in the following particulars: (1) Error in rendering judgment in favor of defendants French, Hoge, and Henson Oil Company, and against plaintiff for costs; (2) error in not rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants; (3) error in finding, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover against said last-named defendants; (4) that the judgment is contrary to law; (S) that the judgment is contrary to the evidence; (6) that the judgment is contrary to both the law and evidence; (7) because of divers other errors appearing in, the record.

*498 A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, to which plaintiff excepted, but the action of the court in overruling said motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error in the petition in error in this court, and therefore none of the matters urged in her brief can be considered. All of the errors assigned are those charged to have occurred during the progress of the trial, and it is a rule well established that, where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of her motion for a new trial, in her petition in error, no question which seeks to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court. J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259, 54 Pac. 467; Beall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Okla. 285, 54 Pac. 474; Martin et al. v. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 Pac. 586; Whiteacre v. Nichols, 17 Okla. 387, 87 Pac. 865; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 Pac. 1013; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 Pac. 1016; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 Okla. 112, 128 Pac. 265.

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

SHARP, C.

Plaintiff in error, in her petition in error, assigns errors committed by the trial court in the following particulars: (1) Error in rendering judgment in favor of defendants French, Hoge, and Henson Oil Company, and against plaintiff for costs; (2) error in not rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants; (3) error in finding, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover against said last-named defendants; (4) that the judgment is contrary to law; (S) that the judgment is contrary to the evidence; (6) that the judgment is contrary to both the law and evidence; (7) because of divers other errors appearing in, the record.

*498 A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, to which plaintiff excepted, but the action of the court in overruling said motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error in the petition in error in this court, and therefore none of the matters urged in her brief can be considered. All of the errors assigned are those charged to have occurred during the progress of the trial, and it is a rule well established that, where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of her motion for a new trial, in her petition in error, no question which seeks to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court. J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259, 54 Pac. 467; Beall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Okla. 285, 54 Pac. 474; Martin et al. v. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 Pac. 586; Whiteacre v. Nichols, 17 Okla. 387, 87 Pac. 865; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 Pac. 1013; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 Pac. 1016; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 Okla. 112, 128 Pac. 265.

The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 74, 139 P. 254, 41 Okla. 497, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-norton-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack