Hunter v. Hines

1912 OK 610, 127 P. 386, 33 Okla. 590, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 752
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided October 8, 1912·No. 4039·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

Counsel for defendants in error insists that this proceeding in error should be dismissed (1) for the reason that the record does not disclose that a motion for a new trial was filed or passed upon, and (2) that the petition in error does not allege the overruling of a motion for a new trial as ground for a review and reversal of the judgment.

The motion is well taken as to both grounds. Deering v. Meyers, 29 Okla. 232, 116 Pac. 793; Burrus v. Funk, 29 Okla. 677, 119 Pac. 976; Cox v. Lavine, 29 Okla. 312, 116 Pac. 920; McDonald et al. v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 Pac. 920; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 Pac. 1016.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES, KANE, and DUNN, JJ., concur.

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

Hunter v. Hines, 1912 OK 610, 127 P. 386, 33 Okla. 590, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 752 (Okla. 1912).

1912 OK 610 (Hunter v. Hines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tulsa Fuel & Mfg. Co. v. McCarty
150 P. 700 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Jennings Co. v. Dyer
1914 OK 89 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Davis
1913 OK 409 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)