Freeman v. Gibson

1925 OK 22, 232 P. 806, 107 Okla. 220, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 87
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided January 7, 1925·No. 15506·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

GORDON, J.

In this case defendants below demurred to plaintiff’s petition. This demurrer was overruled; defendants excepted and refused to plead further “at this time.” No further judgment in the case was either rendered or entered. Therefore, under authority of Exchange Oil Co. v. Crews et al., 90 Okla. 245, 216 Pac. 674, and Stebbens et al. v. Edwards. 107 Okla. 139. 231 Pac. 507, the appeal in this case must be dismissed. The defendants in the court below should be required to elect whether they wib stand nrn their demurrer: if they elect to so stand, judgment should be rendered and entered for plaintiff, and appeal may be then taken by defendants to this court. If defendants shall elect to plead further, they may save their exceptions to the action of the court in overruling their demurrer and the question may be properly presented to this court upon the whole case, when final judgment shall have been rendered and ap *221 peal shall have been taken to this court. The appeal is denied.

All the Justices concur.

Note. — See under (1) 3 C- J. P- “1S4; (2) 3 C. J. p. 598.

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

Freeman v. Gibson, 1925 OK 22, 232 P. 806, 107 Okla. 220, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 87 (Okla. 1925).

1925 OK 22 (Freeman v. Gibson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ins. Fund v. Trieschmann
1952 OK 213 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1952)
Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. Co. v. Parks
1938 OK 262 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Miller v. Noble Drilling Co.
1928 OK 398 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Culp v. State
1925 OK 191 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)