Jones v. Lee

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Jones v. Lee

1914 OK 384, 142 P. 996, 43 Okla. 257, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 503

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedAugust 25, 1914

Docket4474

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1914 OK 384 (Jones v. Lee) 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

Jones v. Lee, 1914 OK 384, 142 P. 996, 43 Okla. 257, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 503 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, C. J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal and proceeding in error herein upon the following grounds:

“(1) Because this is an attempted appeal by petition in error and certified transcript of record filed in the Supreme Court on October 22, 1912, and none of the assignments of error in the petition in error present any questions to this court for review, as fully appears from the assignments and the transcript of the record filed herein, which said assignments are as follows: ‘First. Said district court erred in rendering judgment in favor of defendant in error and against plaintiff in error. Second. Said district court erred in not rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff in error and against defendant in error for costs. Third. Said district court erred in giving to the jury instructions numbered 1 on page 22 of transcript and refusing to give instructions on pages 23 and 24 of transcript requested by plaintiff in error. Fourth. Said district court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial of said cause in said court. Fifth. Said judgment of the district court is contrary to law, excessive, and the result of prejudice and passion. Sixth. Because of divers other errors appearing in said record.”

The motion to dismiss must be sustained. The first, second, and sixth assignments of error are too general and indefinite to present any question for review to the Supreme Court, either upon a transcript of the record or a case-made, in that neither of them points out any specific error or directs the court’s attention to any fact showing cause for reversal. Turner v. First Nat. Bank, *259 40 Okla. 498, 139 Pac. 703. The other assignments of error cannot be presented for review upon a transcript of the record. Glaser v. Glaser et al., 13 Okla. 389, 74 Pac. 944; Boyd v. Bryan, 11 Okla. 56, 65 Pac. 940; Ludwig v. Benedict, 33 Okla. 300, 125 Pac. 739.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

All the Justices concur.

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

KANE, C. J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal and proceeding in error herein upon the following grounds:

“(1) Because this is an attempted appeal by petition in error and certified transcript of record filed in the Supreme Court on October 22, 1912, and none of the assignments of error in the petition in error present any questions to this court for review, as fully appears from the assignments and the transcript of the record filed herein, which said assignments are as follows: ‘First. Said district court erred in rendering judgment in favor of defendant in error and against plaintiff in error. Second. Said district court erred in not rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff in error and against defendant in error for costs. Third. Said district court erred in giving to the jury instructions numbered 1 on page 22 of transcript and refusing to give instructions on pages 23 and 24 of transcript requested by plaintiff in error. Fourth. Said district court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial of said cause in said court. Fifth. Said judgment of the district court is contrary to law, excessive, and the result of prejudice and passion. Sixth. Because of divers other errors appearing in said record.”

The motion to dismiss must be sustained. The first, second, and sixth assignments of error are too general and indefinite to present any question for review to the Supreme Court, either upon a transcript of the record or a case-made, in that neither of them points out any specific error or directs the court’s attention to any fact showing cause for reversal. Turner v. First Nat. Bank, *259 40 Okla. 498, 139 Pac. 703. The other assignments of error cannot be presented for review upon a transcript of the record. Glaser v. Glaser et al., 13 Okla. 389, 74 Pac. 944; Boyd v. Bryan, 11 Okla. 56, 65 Pac. 940; Ludwig v. Benedict, 33 Okla. 300, 125 Pac. 739.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 384, 142 P. 996, 43 Okla. 257, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-lee-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack