Lockett v. Ely-Walker Dry Goods Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Lockett v. Ely-Walker Dry Goods Co.

1916 OK 413, 159 P. 324, 60 Okla. 131, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1300

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 5, 1916

Docket6697

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1916 OK 413 (Lockett v. Ely-Walker Dry Goods Co.) 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

Lockett v. Ely-Walker Dry Goods Co., 1916 OK 413, 159 P. 324, 60 Okla. 131, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1300 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

HOOKER, O.

Tlie plaintiff in error brings this ease to this court by transcript of record. The record here consists of petition, amended petition, answer, and judgment. Considering this record, there is no error, as the answer of the defendant did not contain facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the cause of action set forth in the amended petition, and the motion for a judgment on the pleadings was properly sustained.

There is incorporated here an amended answer which does contain a defense, but the same cannot be considered as a part of this record, for the reason that the judgment of the court affirmatively shows that permission to file an amended answer was refused by the court, and the purported amended answer was not considered. (And the motion for a new trial filed by the plaintiff in error improperly. incorporated here assigns as error the refusal of the court to permit plaintiff in error to file the amended answer.) So it appears that the amended answer was never properly filed by permission or authority of the court and it cannot be considered as a part of this record. If the court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error to file, said answer, we cannot review its action here, for the record is not preserved and presented for review on appeal by case-made or by bill of exceptions made a part of the record.

There being no error, the judgment of the lower 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

Opinion by

HOOKER, O.

Tlie plaintiff in error brings this ease to this court by transcript of record. The record here consists of petition, amended petition, answer, and judgment. Considering this record, there is no error, as the answer of the defendant did not contain facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the cause of action set forth in the amended petition, and the motion for a judgment on the pleadings was properly sustained.

There is incorporated here an amended answer which does contain a defense, but the same cannot be considered as a part of this record, for the reason that the judgment of the court affirmatively shows that permission to file an amended answer was refused by the court, and the purported amended answer was not considered. (And the motion for a new trial filed by the plaintiff in error improperly. incorporated here assigns as error the refusal of the court to permit plaintiff in error to file the amended answer.) So it appears that the amended answer was never properly filed by permission or authority of the court and it cannot be considered as a part of this record. If the court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error to file, said answer, we cannot review its action here, for the record is not preserved and presented for review on appeal by case-made or by bill of exceptions made a part of the record.

There being no error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 413, 159 P. 324, 60 Okla. 131, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockett-v-ely-walker-dry-goods-co-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack