Griggs v. Mid-Continent Motor Securities Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Griggs v. Mid-Continent Motor Securities Co.

1922 OK 350, 211 P. 494, 88 Okla. 23, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 312

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 12, 1922

Docket13475

StatusPublished

This text of 1922 OK 350 (Griggs v. Mid-Continent Motor Securities Co.) 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

Griggs v. Mid-Continent Motor Securities Co., 1922 OK 350, 211 P. 494, 88 Okla. 23, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 312 (Okla. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

ICANE, J.

This is a proceeding in error prosecuted for the purpose of reviewing ti e action of the trial court in denying a motion to vacate an order appointing a receiver.

The defendant in error moves the court to dismiss the appeal upon the ground, among others, that the plaintiffs in error failed to attach to their petition in error a ease-made or bill of .exceptions preserving and making a part of the record the motion to vacate Gie appointment of a receiver, or the order of the trial court overruling or denying the same, or exceptions taken thereto, or the testimony or affidavits introduced in support thereof, upon which the court acted.

Tire motion to dismiss seems to be well taken.

It is well settled that motions and proceedings which are not part of the record proper can only be presented for review by incorporating them into a case-made, or by preserving them by bill of exceptions and embracing them in the transcript. Frank Menten v. Otto A. Shuttee et al., 11 Okla. 381, 67 Pac. 478.

For the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

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