City of Guthrie v. Pearson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

City of Guthrie v. Pearson

1911 OK 372, 120 P. 266, 29 Okla. 813, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 392

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 14, 1911

Docket2415

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1911 OK 372 (City of Guthrie v. Pearson) 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

City of Guthrie v. Pearson, 1911 OK 372, 120 P. 266, 29 Okla. 813, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 392 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

DUNN, J.

This case presents error from the superior court of Logan county, the action having been begun in the district *814 court of that county on.the 4th day .of September, 1907, said date being prior to the .erection of Oklahoma into a state. After statehood there was established, in the said county a superior court, and the cause was transferred- thereto and tried to a jury. Over the objections and exceptions of plaintiff in error, defendant in that court, the court instructed the jury that three-fourths of its number could render a verdict, but that in such case it would be necessary for all concurring therein to sign the same. The giving of this instruction is assigned as error in the motion . for a new trial, the overruling of which is assigned as one of the errors in the petition in error and relied upon in this court for reversal.

■ The identical question here raised was presented to this court in the case of Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Adams et al., 27 Okla. 496, 112 Pac. 1026, wherein we held that an instruction of that character in such a case was error and reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial. Counsel for plaintiff in error have filed a motion predicated on this ground, praying a reversal of the said cause and that this court remand the same for a new trial. As the error committed by the trial court in the giving of this instruction is such.that a reversal of the case would follow when reached in its regular order'on the docket, the motion will be sustained. We have considered both the motion to dismiss and the arguments presented by counsel urging that the cause be ' retained, briefs required, and certain 'questions counsel claim are presented by the record, decided, but have concluded to disallow the same. The evidence was not necessary to decide the question here passed on, and the questions suggested are now hypothetical. The .judgment of the trial court, for the reason above given, is reversed and set aside, aud the case remanded to the superior court of Logan county with instructions to set aside the verdict and judgment heretofore rendered and grant plaintiff in error a new trial.

All the Justices concur.

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

DUNN, J.

This case presents error from the superior court of Logan county, the action having been begun in the district *814 court of that county on.the 4th day .of September, 1907, said date being prior to the .erection of Oklahoma into a state. After statehood there was established, in the said county a superior court, and the cause was transferred- thereto and tried to a jury. Over the objections and exceptions of plaintiff in error, defendant in that court, the court instructed the jury that three-fourths of its number could render a verdict, but that in such case it would be necessary for all concurring therein to sign the same. The giving of this instruction is assigned as error in the motion . for a new trial, the overruling of which is assigned as one of the errors in the petition in error and relied upon in this court for reversal.

■ The identical question here raised was presented to this court in the case of Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Adams et al., 27 Okla. 496, 112 Pac. 1026, wherein we held that an instruction of that character in such a case was error and reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial. Counsel for plaintiff in error have filed a motion predicated on this ground, praying a reversal of the said cause and that this court remand the same for a new trial. As the error committed by the trial court in the giving of this instruction is such.that a reversal of the case would follow when reached in its regular order'on the docket, the motion will be sustained. We have considered both the motion to dismiss and the arguments presented by counsel urging that the cause be ' retained, briefs required, and certain 'questions counsel claim are presented by the record, decided, but have concluded to disallow the same. The evidence was not necessary to decide the question here passed on, and the questions suggested are now hypothetical. The .judgment of the trial court, for the reason above given, is reversed and set aside, aud the case remanded to the superior court of Logan county with instructions to set aside the verdict and judgment heretofore rendered and grant plaintiff in error a new trial.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 372, 120 P. 266, 29 Okla. 813, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-guthrie-v-pearson-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack