Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Coweta v. Sharum

1908 OK 163, 97 P. 555, 21 Okla. 863, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 181
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 9, 1908
DocketNo. 808, Ind. T.
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 1908 OK 163 (Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Coweta v. Sharum) 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
Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Coweta v. Sharum, 1908 OK 163, 97 P. 555, 21 Okla. 863, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 181 (Okla. 1908).

Opinion

DuNN, J.

On March 30, 1906, the plaintiff, A. J. Sharum filed his verified complaint in the office of the clerk of the United States Court for the' Western District of Indian Territory, sitting at Muskogee. After reciting the complaint, the record contains the following statement: “And thereafter,’ on the 3d day of July, the same being a day of the April, 1906, term of said court, this cause coming on to be heard on the demurrer to amended complaint, and the court being fully advised in the premises, doth overrule said demurrer, to which defendant at the time excepts, and stands by his demurrer. Decree is rendered for plaintiff, making injunction perpetual, which said decree is in words and figures' as follows,’’ etc.

This is the only statement in the record from which even an inference may be drawn as to what was before the court.

*864 From the judgment rendered, sustaining the complaint, the defendant appealed to the United States Court of Appeals of the Indian Territory, and by virtue of our succession the cause is before this court for - consideration, and as the record does not contain a copy of the demurrer which is purported to have been filed, and on which the court is presumed to have acted, there is nothing before us by which we can determine upon what the judgment was rendered, or the matter that was directly in controversy before the trial court, and, as a presumption that the judgment of the trial court was correct accompanies the case on an appeal to this court, the same is accordingly dismissed. Richardson v. Pennington, 4 Ind. T. 172, 69 S. W. 838; In re Delks' Estate, 2 Ind. T. 572, 52 S. W. 52.

All the Justices concur .

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

Related

Ouellette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
1994 OK 79 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1994)
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, Chickasha, Oklahoma v. Nath
1992 OK 129 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1992)
Davidson v. Gregory
780 P.2d 679 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1989)
Gowin v. Heider
391 P.2d 630 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1964)
Frangos v. Edmunds
173 P.2d 596 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1946)
Morton Salt Co. v. Wells
70 S.W.2d 409 (Texas Supreme Court, 1934)
Smith v. Pacific Northwest Public Service Co.
29 P.2d 819 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1934)
Burdick v. Tum-A-Lum Lumber Co.
191 P. 654 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1920)
Grantz v. Jenkins
1918 OK 585 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Emerson v. Portland, E. & E. R.
166 P. 946 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1917)
Barnhart v. North Pacific Lumber Co.
162 P. 843 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1917)
Henderson v. Tillamook Hotel Co.
148 P. 57 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Delovage v. Old Oregon Creamery Co.
147 P. 392 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Subbo v. Pacific Coast Const. Co.
123 P. 1070 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
Vanyi v. Portland Flouring Mills Co.
128 P. 830 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1912)
Cox v. Warford
1912 OK 540 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Moulton v. St. Johns Lumber Co.
120 P. 1057 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1912)
DeVall v. DeVall
109 P. 755 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1910)
Allen v. Standard Box & Lumber Co.
96 P. 1109 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1908 OK 163, 97 P. 555, 21 Okla. 863, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-merchants-bank-of-coweta-v-sharum-okla-1908.