Bristow Nat. Bank v. Brumley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bristow Nat. Bank v. Brumley

1918 OK 33, 170 P. 268, 69 Okla. 91, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 626

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 22, 1918

Docket8307

StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK 33 (Bristow Nat. Bank v. Brumley) 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

Bristow Nat. Bank v. Brumley, 1918 OK 33, 170 P. 268, 69 Okla. 91, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 626 (Okla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

GALBRAITH, C.

This was an action for damages by Eva Brumley and another against the Bristow National Bank and Rufe Alcorn, for the value of two acres of onions owned by the plaintiffs as tenants of the assignor of the lease on the premises where the onions were • grown. It is alleged that after an attornment to the bank and an agreement by it for the continuance of the tenancy, in breach of this agreement, it leased the premises to Rufe Alcorn, who plowed up and destroyed the onions, to plaintiffs’ damage in the sum of $200. There was a trial to the court and a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the sum prayed for, and judgment was rendered for this amount. The bank and Al-corn have appealed, and assigned as error: First, the admission, over objections, of “incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant” testimony ; second, that the verdict and1 judgment i» contrary to law; third, error of the court in denying the motion for an instructed verdict presented at the close of the plaintiffs’ tesfimony.

A motion is here presented to dismiss the appeal for the reasons: First, that the *92 brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in error does not contain sufficient abstract of the facts to justify a reversal of the judgment appealed from; second, that “the petition in error contains no assignment of error.” Assuming that the second ground of the motion means that “no assignment of error” that can be considered upon this appeal is set out in the petition in error for the reason that the ruling of the trial court denying the motion for new trial is not assigned as error therein, this ground of the motion is well taken, since all of the errors assigned are to alleged errors occurring at the trial, and these cannot be considered in the absence of the assignment to the overruling of the motion for new trial.

Upon authority of O’Neil et al. v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 Pac. 141, the appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

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

GALBRAITH, C.

This was an action for damages by Eva Brumley and another against the Bristow National Bank and Rufe Alcorn, for the value of two acres of onions owned by the plaintiffs as tenants of the assignor of the lease on the premises where the onions were • grown. It is alleged that after an attornment to the bank and an agreement by it for the continuance of the tenancy, in breach of this agreement, it leased the premises to Rufe Alcorn, who plowed up and destroyed the onions, to plaintiffs’ damage in the sum of $200. There was a trial to the court and a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the sum prayed for, and judgment was rendered for this amount. The bank and Al-corn have appealed, and assigned as error: First, the admission, over objections, of “incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant” testimony ; second, that the verdict and1 judgment i» contrary to law; third, error of the court in denying the motion for an instructed verdict presented at the close of the plaintiffs’ tesfimony.

A motion is here presented to dismiss the appeal for the reasons: First, that the *92 brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in error does not contain sufficient abstract of the facts to justify a reversal of the judgment appealed from; second, that “the petition in error contains no assignment of error.” Assuming that the second ground of the motion means that “no assignment of error” that can be considered upon this appeal is set out in the petition in error for the reason that the ruling of the trial court denying the motion for new trial is not assigned as error therein, this ground of the motion is well taken, since all of the errors assigned are to alleged errors occurring at the trial, and these cannot be considered in the absence of the assignment to the overruling of the motion for new trial.

Upon authority of O’Neil et al. v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 Pac. 141, the appeal must be dismissed. It is so ordered.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 33, 170 P. 268, 69 Okla. 91, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bristow-nat-bank-v-brumley-okla-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack