Carr v. Seigler

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Carr v. Seigler

1915 OK 939, 153 P. 141, 52 Okla. 485, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 309

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 16, 1915

Docket5768

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 1915 OK 939 (Carr v. Seigler) 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

Carr v. Seigler, 1915 OK 939, 153 P. 141, 52 Okla. 485, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 309 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

BRETT, C.

This action was brought in the county court of Comanche county by the defendant in error, as plaintiff, against the plaintiff in error, as de-. fendant, to recover damages alleged to be due by reason of the cattle of plaintiff in error trespassing upon the defendant in error.

The plaintiff in error assigns a number of errors, but does not cite or quote a single authority in support of any of them. The first and most important assignment, however, goes to the sufficiency of the petition. The petition is defective, but no demurrer was filed against it, and its sufficiency was challenged for the first time by an objection to the introduction of evidence. This court has repeatedly held that such practice is not favored, and that, if by any reasonable construction the petition can be held to state a good cause of action, it will be upheld, when its sufficiency is first attacked by an objection to-the introduction of evidence. There is a vast difference between a defective statement of a good cause of action and a statement of a defective cause of action; and in the case at bar we have only a defective statement of a good cause of action, and this class of petitions is beyond the reach of an objection to the introduction of evidence, unless there is a total failure to allege in any way some matter essential to the relief sought, or a total want of averment sufficient to sustain a verdict, should one be *487 rendered on evidence introduced under it. And such is not the condition of the petition under consideration. Hogan et al. v. Bailey, 27 Okla. 15, 110 Pac. 890; First National Bank of Pond Creek v. Vernon Cochran, 17 Okla. 538, 87 Pac. 855; Mary E. Marshall et al. v. Mary Homier, 13 Okla. 264, 75 Pac. 368.

Since the plaintiff in error has not supported any of his, contentions by any authorities whatever, we shall not discuss them in detail, but 'only say we have examined them carefully in connection with the record, and find no prejudicial error, but think the trial resulted in substantial justice, and that the judgment 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

BRETT, C.

This action was brought in the county court of Comanche county by the defendant in error, as plaintiff, against the plaintiff in error, as de-. fendant, to recover damages alleged to be due by reason of the cattle of plaintiff in error trespassing upon the defendant in error.

The plaintiff in error assigns a number of errors, but does not cite or quote a single authority in support of any of them. The first and most important assignment, however, goes to the sufficiency of the petition. The petition is defective, but no demurrer was filed against it, and its sufficiency was challenged for the first time by an objection to the introduction of evidence. This court has repeatedly held that such practice is not favored, and that, if by any reasonable construction the petition can be held to state a good cause of action, it will be upheld, when its sufficiency is first attacked by an objection to-the introduction of evidence. There is a vast difference between a defective statement of a good cause of action and a statement of a defective cause of action; and in the case at bar we have only a defective statement of a good cause of action, and this class of petitions is beyond the reach of an objection to the introduction of evidence, unless there is a total failure to allege in any way some matter essential to the relief sought, or a total want of averment sufficient to sustain a verdict, should one be *487 rendered on evidence introduced under it. And such is not the condition of the petition under consideration. Hogan et al. v. Bailey, 27 Okla. 15, 110 Pac. 890; First National Bank of Pond Creek v. Vernon Cochran, 17 Okla. 538, 87 Pac. 855; Mary E. Marshall et al. v. Mary Homier, 13 Okla. 264, 75 Pac. 368.

Since the plaintiff in error has not supported any of his, contentions by any authorities whatever, we shall not discuss them in detail, but 'only say we have examined them carefully in connection with the record, and find no prejudicial error, but think the trial resulted in substantial justice, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 939, 153 P. 141, 52 Okla. 485, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-seigler-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack