Howe v. Hall

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Howe v. Hall

1919 OK 267, 183 P. 983, 76 Okla. 41, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 114

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 30, 1919

Docket10826

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1919 OK 267 (Howe v. Hall) 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

Howe v. Hall, 1919 OK 267, 183 P. 983, 76 Okla. 41, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 114 (Okla. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by transcript, without bill of exceptions or case-made. A motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by defendant in error. The ease was tried on an agreed statements of facts, and judgment rendered for plaintiff canceling a deed under which the defendant claimed title to the land in controversy. The assignments of error require a consideration of the agreed statement of facts on which the case was tried. It was held in the ease of Brown v. Capital Townsite Co., 21 Okla. 586, 96 Pac. 587, that an agreed statement of facts, not being a part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions or case-made, cannot be considered on error, although a copy of it is attached to the transcript of the record.

The “record” proper in a civil action does not include an agreed statement of facts. So. Surety Co. v. Turnham, 58 Okla. 583, 160 Pac. 468; Williams v. Kelly, 71 Oklahoma, 176 Pac. 204; Callahan v. Callahan, 47 Okla. 542, 149 Pac. 135.

Therefore the motion to dismiss must be sustained, and it is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by transcript, without bill of exceptions or case-made. A motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by defendant in error. The ease was tried on an agreed statements of facts, and judgment rendered for plaintiff canceling a deed under which the defendant claimed title to the land in controversy. The assignments of error require a consideration of the agreed statement of facts on which the case was tried. It was held in the ease of Brown v. Capital Townsite Co., 21 Okla. 586, 96 Pac. 587, that an agreed statement of facts, not being a part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions or case-made, cannot be considered on error, although a copy of it is attached to the transcript of the record.

The “record” proper in a civil action does not include an agreed statement of facts. So. Surety Co. v. Turnham, 58 Okla. 583, 160 Pac. 468; Williams v. Kelly, 71 Oklahoma, 176 Pac. 204; Callahan v. Callahan, 47 Okla. 542, 149 Pac. 135.

Therefore the motion to dismiss must be sustained, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1919 OK 267, 183 P. 983, 76 Okla. 41, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howe-v-hall-okla-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack