Graham v. Atwood

1913 OK 691, 136 P. 1080, 41 Okla. 30, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 63
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided November 25, 1913·No. 3286·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

*31 Opinion by

GALBRAITH, C.

Two reasons appear why the record in this case presents no question for review.

First. The errors assigned in the main require an examination of the evidence introduced at the trial in the court below. The case-made contains no recital that it contains “all the evidence” introduced at the trial, and an examination of it shows affirmatively that it does not contain all the evidence. It appears that a certain written statement of account and certain time checks that were material in establishing the amount of the plaintiff’s claim, and which were introduced in evidence, have not been incorporated in the case-made. Waltham Piano Co. v. Wolcott, 38 Okla. 770, 135 Pac. 339.

Second. The case-made is not sufficiently authenticated. The certificate of the trial judge to the case-made bears date of April 20, 1911; but the seal of the court is not attached thereto, nor does it appear that the case-made was filed with the papers in the case, as required by section 5242, Rev. Laws 1910. Stallard v. Knapp, 9 Okla. 591, 60 Pac. 234; Marple v. Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank, 28 Okla. 810, 115 Pac. 1124; Brooks et al. v. United Mine Workers of America, 36 Okla. 109, 128 Pac. 236; Oklahoma City v. McKean, 39 Okla. 300, 135 Pac. 19.

It follows that the appeal should 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

Graham v. Atwood, 1913 OK 691, 136 P. 1080, 41 Okla. 30, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 63 (Okla. 1913).

1913 OK 691 (Graham v. Atwood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lewis v. State
1938 OK CR 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1938)
In Re Colling's Guardianship
1914 OK 177 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)