Ahren-Ott Mfg. Co. v. Condon

1909 OK 43, 100 P. 556, 23 Okla. 365, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 364
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 9, 1909
Docket614
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 1909 OK 43 (Ahren-Ott Mfg. Co. v. Condon) 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
Ahren-Ott Mfg. Co. v. Condon, 1909 OK 43, 100 P. 556, 23 Okla. 365, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 364 (Okla. 1909).

Opinion

Dunn, J.

This cause was filed in the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory sitting at Muskogee, and was pending at the time Oklahoma and Indian Territories were erected into a state. After statehood it was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury, who on hearing the evidence rendered judgment denying plaintiffs the relief prayed for. Plaintiffs announced their intention to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, whereupon tiifle in which to prepare, servo, and have settled a case-made was given. No motion for a new trial was filed, nor was the case-made served on counsel or the defendants or either of them, nor was it signed and settled by the trial judge. There appears, however, at the close of the record presented to us, a certificate signed by the clerk of the district court showing that it contains a correct transcript of all proceedings and all journal entries, and a correct copy and transcript of all depositions on file in his office, and all evidence introduced in said cause. The petition in error and the assignments therein raise questions of alleged errors of the eourt on the trial. Counsel for defendants in error have lodged in this court a motion to dismiss the case, which in our judgment must be sustained.

It is a well-established principle that error occurring on the trial of a cause will not be reviewed by this court unless presented to the trial court on motion for new trial. Boyd et al. v. Bryan, 11 Okla. 56, 65, Pac. 940; Decker v. House, 30 Kan. 614, 1 Pac. 584; McNally v. Keplinger, 37 Kan. 556, 15 Pac. 534; 14 Ency. Pleading & Practice, p. 846. This is true even though the cause is tried to the court without a jury. 14 Ency. Pleading & Practice, p. 848; Ortman v. Giles, 9 Kan. 324. It is further well established that matters which are not by statute authorized to be made a part of the record except by case-made or bill of exceptions cannot be brought to this court on a certificate of the clerk, and errors assigned thereon. United. States ex rel. v. Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad et al., 3 Okla. 404, 41. Pac. 729; *367 City of Kingfisher v. Pratt, 4 Okla. 284, 43 Pac. 1068; Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. v. Furman, 6 Okla. 649, 52 Pac. 932.

The Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma in the case of United States ex rel. v. C., O. & G. Ry. Co., supra, in the syllabus held that:

“No evidence, depositions, affidavits, or judge’s opinion is a part of the record unless made so by being embodied in a bill of exceptions or case-made, and neither the clerk, by his certificate, nor the direction of the judge, himself, can be effective to incorporate these things in the record, in the absence of statutory authority.”

From the authority of the foregoing cases it is at once apparent that without a motion for a new trial, and without any presentation of the prepared case-made to the trial judge for signing and settlement, any errors which may have been committed by the trial court on the trial of the cause are waived; and, as nothing is sought to be presented to us except errors alleged to have been committed on the trial, the motion of defendants in error must be sustained.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Forrester
1918 OK 650 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
City of Mangum v. Heatly
1916 OK 40 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Baugh v. Hudson
1915 OK 941 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Thompson v. Huston
1914 OK 284 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Lewis
1913 OK 568 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Elsea Bros. v. Killian
1913 OK 326 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Bettis v. Cargile
1912 OK 534 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Campbell v. Lane
1912 OK 333 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Kee v. Park
1912 OK 259 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Leake
1912 OK 278 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Rice v. Folsom
1912 OK 109 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Johnston Abstract & Loan Co. v. Swarts
1912 OK 44 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
James v. Jackson
1911 OK 400 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1909 OK 43, 100 P. 556, 23 Okla. 365, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahren-ott-mfg-co-v-condon-okla-1909.