J. W. Graves Co. v. Foster

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

J. W. Graves Co. v. Foster

1916 OK 560, 157 P. 916, 57 Okla. 705, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 578

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 16, 1916

Docket7550

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK 560 (J. W. Graves Co. v. Foster) 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. W. Graves Co. v. Foster, 1916 OK 560, 157 P. 916, 57 Okla. 705, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 578 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

*706 Opinion by

HOOKER, C.

C. W. Foster sued the Graves Company, a corporation, in the county of Kiowa, to recover money alleged to be due to him by it. The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim, which consisted of a general denial, and sought by way of counterclaim to recover against Foster for losses on cotton for the season 1913-14, alleging that by virtue of an agreement existing between it and Foster, Foster was to pay the same, but had failed so to do. Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced evidence to sustain the allegations of his petition, and thereupon the defendant, the J. W. Graves Company, sought to introduce evidence to sustain the allegations of its counterclaim, seeking to establish an indebtedness due it by Foster, as prayed for and set forth in said counterclaim, but the court sustained an objection to the introduction of said evidence, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff below and- against the company for the amount sued for. The petition in error filed in this cause contains the following assignments of error:

First. That said court erred in sustaining the objection of defendant in error to the introduction of any evidence by plaintiff in error under the counterclaim which plaintiff in error had pleaded, which counterclaim is set out in full in the answer filed in said action, and appears on page 2 of the case-made attached to this petition in error, and marked Exhibit A, which objection appears in full on page 42 of the case-made, to which ruling of the court plaintiff in error duly excepted at the time, as appears on page 42 of the case-made.

Second. That said court erred in. refusing to sustain the motion of plaintiff in error to dismiss the action of plaintiff for the reason that, according to plaintiff’s contention, the claim would be one'between partners and no showing of an accounting had been made, which motion *707 appears in full on page 42 of the case-made, and to which ruling of said court plaintiff in error'duly excepted at the time, as appears from page 43 of the case-made.

It will be noted that the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error in the petition in error filed in this court. This court has repeatedly and uniformly held that this omission is fatal when it is sought to have this court review the errors alleged to have been committed during the progress of the trial in the court below.

Therefore, under the authority of this court as expressed in Lamb v. Milne et al., 51 Okla. 342, 151 Pac. 1060, and Lewis v. Lynde-Bowman-Darby Co., reported in 51 Okla. 271, 151 Pac. 1045, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

*706 Opinion by

HOOKER, C.

C. W. Foster sued the Graves Company, a corporation, in the county of Kiowa, to recover money alleged to be due to him by it. The defendant filed an answer and counterclaim, which consisted of a general denial, and sought by way of counterclaim to recover against Foster for losses on cotton for the season 1913-14, alleging that by virtue of an agreement existing between it and Foster, Foster was to pay the same, but had failed so to do. Upon the trial the plaintiff introduced evidence to sustain the allegations of his petition, and thereupon the defendant, the J. W. Graves Company, sought to introduce evidence to sustain the allegations of its counterclaim, seeking to establish an indebtedness due it by Foster, as prayed for and set forth in said counterclaim, but the court sustained an objection to the introduction of said evidence, and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff below and- against the company for the amount sued for. The petition in error filed in this cause contains the following assignments of error:

First. That said court erred in sustaining the objection of defendant in error to the introduction of any evidence by plaintiff in error under the counterclaim which plaintiff in error had pleaded, which counterclaim is set out in full in the answer filed in said action, and appears on page 2 of the case-made attached to this petition in error, and marked Exhibit A, which objection appears in full on page 42 of the case-made, to which ruling of the court plaintiff in error duly excepted at the time, as appears on page 42 of the case-made.

Second. That said court erred in. refusing to sustain the motion of plaintiff in error to dismiss the action of plaintiff for the reason that, according to plaintiff’s contention, the claim would be one'between partners and no showing of an accounting had been made, which motion *707 appears in full on page 42 of the case-made, and to which ruling of said court plaintiff in error'duly excepted at the time, as appears from page 43 of the case-made.

It will be noted that the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error in the petition in error filed in this court. This court has repeatedly and uniformly held that this omission is fatal when it is sought to have this court review the errors alleged to have been committed during the progress of the trial in the court below.

Therefore, under the authority of this court as expressed in Lamb v. Milne et al., 51 Okla. 342, 151 Pac. 1060, and Lewis v. Lynde-Bowman-Darby Co., reported in 51 Okla. 271, 151 Pac. 1045, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 560, 157 P. 916, 57 Okla. 705, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-w-graves-co-v-foster-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack