J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks

1898 OK 64, 54 P. 467, 7 Okla. 259, 1898 Okla. LEXIS 31

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 30, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1898 OK 64 (J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks) 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

J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 1898 OK 64, 54 P. 467, 7 Okla. 259, 1898 Okla. LEXIS 31 (Okla. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

McAtee, J.:

This case is considered upon the motion *260 of the attorneys for the defendants in error, filed May 27, 1897, for an order dismissing the cause, upon the ground that the petition in error fails to assign any reviewable error for the consideration of the court. The motion for a new trial by the plaintiff below, who is also plaintiff in error here, is for the reasons (1) that the verdict and decision are not sustained by sufficient evidence,, and are contrary to law; and (2) for errors of law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the plaintiff. The motion was overruled. The errors here assigned were upon errors alleged to have occurred at the trial. The fact that the motion for a new trial was overruled was not assigned as error in the petition in error. It has been repeatedly determined, under our Code of Civil Procedure, adopted from Kansas, by the supreme court of Kansas, from which it was adopted, that even though a motion for a new trial be filed in’ the court below upon grounds for which a new trial may be granted, and the motion be overruled, the supreme court will not consider these grounds, unless, in the petition in error, the overruling of the motion for a new trial is assigned as error.

It was • said in the case of Crawford v. Railroad Co. (Kan. Sup.) 25 Pac. 865, that: “Nor can any of the points or questions involved, and -which were subject to review upon the motion, for a new trial, be considered in this court, unless the overruling of that motion is assigned as error. (Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 Pac. 327; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 Pac. 645; City of McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129, 23 Pac. 109.”) The petition in error will therefore be dismissed.

Burford, C. J., having presided in the court below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

McAtee, J.:

This case is considered upon the motion *260 of the attorneys for the defendants in error, filed May 27, 1897, for an order dismissing the cause, upon the ground that the petition in error fails to assign any reviewable error for the consideration of the court. The motion for a new trial by the plaintiff below, who is also plaintiff in error here, is for the reasons (1) that the verdict and decision are not sustained by sufficient evidence,, and are contrary to law; and (2) for errors of law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the plaintiff. The motion was overruled. The errors here assigned were upon errors alleged to have occurred at the trial. The fact that the motion for a new trial was overruled was not assigned as error in the petition in error. It has been repeatedly determined, under our Code of Civil Procedure, adopted from Kansas, by the supreme court of Kansas, from which it was adopted, that even though a motion for a new trial be filed in’ the court below upon grounds for which a new trial may be granted, and the motion be overruled, the supreme court will not consider these grounds, unless, in the petition in error, the overruling of the motion for a new trial is assigned as error.

It was • said in the case of Crawford v. Railroad Co. (Kan. Sup.) 25 Pac. 865, that: “Nor can any of the points or questions involved, and -which were subject to review upon the motion, for a new trial, be considered in this court, unless the overruling of that motion is assigned as error. (Carson v. Funk, 27 Kan. 524; Clark v. Schnur, 40 Kan. 72, 19 Pac. 327; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 Kan. 520, 21 Pac. 645; City of McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129, 23 Pac. 109.”) The petition in error will therefore be dismissed.

Burford, C. J., having presided in the court below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1898 OK 64, 54 P. 467, 7 Okla. 259, 1898 Okla. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-j-douglas-co-v-sparks-okla-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack