Gilkerson v. Coffey

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Gilkerson v. Coffey

1915 OK 612, 151 P. 680, 51 Okla. 27, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 925

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 7, 1915

Docket4836

StatusPublished

This text of 1915 OK 612 (Gilkerson v. Coffey) 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

Gilkerson v. Coffey, 1915 OK 612, 151 P. 680, 51 Okla. 27, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 925 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

CEOW, C.

Plaintiff in error has failed to assign as error the overruling of his motion for new trial by the trial court. All the assignments of error contained in his petition in error are such as would require a review of the record in the case to discover errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial, in the lower court. “It is a well-established rule in this court that, where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of a motion for a new trial in his petition in error, no question is properly presented in the Supreme Court to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the lower court.” See McDonald et al. v. Wilson, *28 29 Okla. 309, 116 Pac. 920; Bice et al. v. Myers et al., 45 Okla. 507, 145 Pac. 1150; Cox v. Lavine, 29 Okla. 312, 116 Pac. 920.

We therefore recommend that the appeal herein be •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

CEOW, C.

Plaintiff in error has failed to assign as error the overruling of his motion for new trial by the trial court. All the assignments of error contained in his petition in error are such as would require a review of the record in the case to discover errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial, in the lower court. “It is a well-established rule in this court that, where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of a motion for a new trial in his petition in error, no question is properly presented in the Supreme Court to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the lower court.” See McDonald et al. v. Wilson, *28 29 Okla. 309, 116 Pac. 920; Bice et al. v. Myers et al., 45 Okla. 507, 145 Pac. 1150; Cox v. Lavine, 29 Okla. 312, 116 Pac. 920.

We therefore recommend that the appeal herein be •dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 612, 151 P. 680, 51 Okla. 27, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilkerson-v-coffey-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack