Farmers' State Bank of Granite v. City State Bank of Mangum

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Farmers' State Bank of Granite v. City State Bank of Mangum

1914 OK 225, 140 P. 1150, 42 Okla. 207, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 335

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 12, 1914

Docket3529

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK 225 (Farmers' State Bank of Granite v. City State Bank of Mangum) 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' State Bank of Granite v. City State Bank of Mangum, 1914 OK 225, 140 P. 1150, 42 Okla. 207, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 335 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

The defendant in error moved to dismiss this appeal on the'ground that no petition in error had been filed. The only pleading which could possibly be interpreted as a petition in error is as follows:

*208 “In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Farmers’ State Bank, Plaintiff in Error, v. City State Bank of Mangum, Defendant in Error. Assignment of Error. Comes now the plaintiff in error and assigns as error of the trial court that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial filed in tire lower court: B. F. Van Dyke, Attorney for Plaintiff in Error.”

The petition in error should, with reasonable certainty, describe the cause wherein it is claimed that error has occurred, and the judgment should be described with the same reasonable certainty. The petition in error in this cause is not entitled a petition in error, does not describe the judgment appealed from, does not set- forth the court or cause in which the judgment was rendered, does not contain a prayer for relief, nor is the case-made i eferred to in any manner as a part of said petition.

The object of the petition in error, as provided by section 6069, Comp. Laws 1909 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 5238), is to obtain a reversal, vacation, or modification of the judgment or final order, and, when such judgment or final order is not set forth in the petition in error with reasonable certainty, the same is insufficient.

In the case of Ketner v. Dillingham, 6 Kan. App. 921, 50 Pac. 1098, the court held under a similar statute:

“Where -the petition in error does not show in what case or court the judgment was rendered, nor what court tried the case, nor the pleadings, it will be dismissed.”

See, also, Higgins v. Higgins, 7 Kan. App. 811, 52 Pac. 906; Marvel v. White, 5 Okla. 736, 50 Pac. 87; Board of Com’rs of Woods County v. Oxley, 8 Okla. 502, 58 Pac. 651; King v. Horse Chief Eagle, 23 Okla. 532, 101 Pac. 1135; Gwinnup et al. v. Griffins et al., 26 Okla. 866, 113 Pac. 909; McMasters v. English et al., 26 Okla. 818, 110 Pac. 1070; Wilson v. Mann, 37 Okla. 475, 132 Pac. 487.

The purported petition in error in this cause is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court, and the motion to dismiss the cause on the ground of the insufficiency of such petition should be sustained, and the cause dismissed.

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

RITTENHOUSE, C.

The defendant in error moved to dismiss this appeal on the'ground that no petition in error had been filed. The only pleading which could possibly be interpreted as a petition in error is as follows:

*208 “In the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. Farmers’ State Bank, Plaintiff in Error, v. City State Bank of Mangum, Defendant in Error. Assignment of Error. Comes now the plaintiff in error and assigns as error of the trial court that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial filed in tire lower court: B. F. Van Dyke, Attorney for Plaintiff in Error.”

The petition in error should, with reasonable certainty, describe the cause wherein it is claimed that error has occurred, and the judgment should be described with the same reasonable certainty. The petition in error in this cause is not entitled a petition in error, does not describe the judgment appealed from, does not set- forth the court or cause in which the judgment was rendered, does not contain a prayer for relief, nor is the case-made i eferred to in any manner as a part of said petition.

The object of the petition in error, as provided by section 6069, Comp. Laws 1909 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 5238), is to obtain a reversal, vacation, or modification of the judgment or final order, and, when such judgment or final order is not set forth in the petition in error with reasonable certainty, the same is insufficient.

In the case of Ketner v. Dillingham, 6 Kan. App. 921, 50 Pac. 1098, the court held under a similar statute:

“Where -the petition in error does not show in what case or court the judgment was rendered, nor what court tried the case, nor the pleadings, it will be dismissed.”

See, also, Higgins v. Higgins, 7 Kan. App. 811, 52 Pac. 906; Marvel v. White, 5 Okla. 736, 50 Pac. 87; Board of Com’rs of Woods County v. Oxley, 8 Okla. 502, 58 Pac. 651; King v. Horse Chief Eagle, 23 Okla. 532, 101 Pac. 1135; Gwinnup et al. v. Griffins et al., 26 Okla. 866, 113 Pac. 909; McMasters v. English et al., 26 Okla. 818, 110 Pac. 1070; Wilson v. Mann, 37 Okla. 475, 132 Pac. 487.

The purported petition in error in this cause is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court, and the motion to dismiss the cause on the ground of the insufficiency of such petition should be sustained, and the cause dismissed.

By the Court: It is -so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 225, 140 P. 1150, 42 Okla. 207, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-state-bank-of-granite-v-city-state-bank-of-mangum-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack