Board of Com'rs of Beaver County v. Langston

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Board of Com'rs of Beaver County v. Langston

1914 OK 137, 139 P. 956, 41 Okla. 715, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 217

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 24, 1914

Docket3617

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 1914 OK 137 (Board of Com'rs of Beaver County v. Langston) 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

Board of Com'rs of Beaver County v. Langston, 1914 OK 137, 139 P. 956, 41 Okla. 715, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 217 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

*716 Opinion by

BREWER, C.

The board of county commissioners of Beaver county sued W. PI. Langston, formerly county clerk, together with the sureties on his official bond, for certain sums of money which it was alleged he had improperly retained as fees. The defendants for an answer filed a general denial. The cause was tried to a jury, and at the close of the evidence the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendants. The jury returned the verdict according to the instructions of the court, and judgment was pronounced in accordance thereto.

Four assignments of error are set out in the petition’ in error filed in this court, but they all go to the action of the court in directing a verdict. No motion was filed for a new trial. To have reviewed in this court alleged errors occurring at the trial, a motion for a new trial and the ruling of the court thereon are necessary. Martin v. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 Pac. 586; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 Pac. 1016; Perkins v. Perkins, 37 Okla. 693, 132 Pac. 1097; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 Okla. 112, 128 Pac. 265, and cases cited.

That the action of the court upon a demurrer to the evidence is a matter occurring at the trial, and to complain of which it requires a motion for a new trial, is a well-settled rule of this court. Stump v. Porter, 31 Okla. 157, 120 Pac. 639; Ardmore O. & M. Co. v. Doggett Grain Co., 32 Okla. 280, 122 Pac. 241; Insurance Co. v. Little, 34 Okla. 449, 125 Pac. 1098, and cases cited. It necessarily follows, we think, that the action of the court upon a motion to direct a verdict is equally a matter occurring at the trial, and would therefore require, to have such action reviewed, the filing and overruling of a motion for a new trial. As none was filed in this case, we cannot review the action of the court complained of.

The cause should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

*716 Opinion by

BREWER, C.

The board of county commissioners of Beaver county sued W. PI. Langston, formerly county clerk, together with the sureties on his official bond, for certain sums of money which it was alleged he had improperly retained as fees. The defendants for an answer filed a general denial. The cause was tried to a jury, and at the close of the evidence the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendants. The jury returned the verdict according to the instructions of the court, and judgment was pronounced in accordance thereto.

Four assignments of error are set out in the petition’ in error filed in this court, but they all go to the action of the court in directing a verdict. No motion was filed for a new trial. To have reviewed in this court alleged errors occurring at the trial, a motion for a new trial and the ruling of the court thereon are necessary. Martin v. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 Pac. 586; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 Pac. 1016; Perkins v. Perkins, 37 Okla. 693, 132 Pac. 1097; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 Okla. 112, 128 Pac. 265, and cases cited.

That the action of the court upon a demurrer to the evidence is a matter occurring at the trial, and to complain of which it requires a motion for a new trial, is a well-settled rule of this court. Stump v. Porter, 31 Okla. 157, 120 Pac. 639; Ardmore O. & M. Co. v. Doggett Grain Co., 32 Okla. 280, 122 Pac. 241; Insurance Co. v. Little, 34 Okla. 449, 125 Pac. 1098, and cases cited. It necessarily follows, we think, that the action of the court upon a motion to direct a verdict is equally a matter occurring at the trial, and would therefore require, to have such action reviewed, the filing and overruling of a motion for a new trial. As none was filed in this case, we cannot review the action of the court complained of.

The cause should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 137, 139 P. 956, 41 Okla. 715, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-comrs-of-beaver-county-v-langston-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack