McClung v. Harris

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McClung v. Harris

1901 OK 37, 65 P. 941, 11 Okla. 64, 1901 Okla. LEXIS 8

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 6, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1901 OK 37 (McClung v. Harris) 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

McClung v. Harris, 1901 OK 37, 65 P. 941, 11 Okla. 64, 1901 Okla. LEXIS 8 (Okla. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Burwbll, J.:

This is an action of mandatory rtrjunc-tion from the district court of Kay county, and comes here ■ a second time on appeal, having been considered by this, court at the January, 1901, term, and in the opinion then handed down the trial court was directed to enter a certain'. *65 judgment. When the mandate from this court reached the court below, the plaintiff presented an amended petition, setting np facts which occurred prior to the trial of the original case appealed to this court, and asked leave to file the same, and to be permitted to litigate the additional matter set up in such amended petition. The plaintiff’s application to amend was denied, and from this order and the judgment entered by the district court, pursuant to the mandate from this court, plaintiff appeals, and the defendant in error moves the dismissal of such appeal. In our judgment the motion should be sustained. It was the duty of the plaintiff to plead all of the facts which would afford him any relief in the case when it was tried the first time in the court below. This court took the record as it found it, and from the record the defendant was clearly entitled to the relief granted, and under the facts disclosed by the case-made, in equity and under the authorities, no other judgment should have been rendered. The trial court, under the mandate, had no discretion in the premises and, therefore, this appeal should be dismissed at the cost of appellant. (Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U. S. 361; Durant v. Essex County, 101 U. S. 555; Mackall v. Richerd, 116 U. S 45.)

It is so ordered.

Hainer, 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

Burwbll, J.:

This is an action of mandatory rtrjunc-tion from the district court of Kay county, and comes here ■ a second time on appeal, having been considered by this, court at the January, 1901, term, and in the opinion then handed down the trial court was directed to enter a certain'. *65 judgment. When the mandate from this court reached the court below, the plaintiff presented an amended petition, setting np facts which occurred prior to the trial of the original case appealed to this court, and asked leave to file the same, and to be permitted to litigate the additional matter set up in such amended petition. The plaintiff’s application to amend was denied, and from this order and the judgment entered by the district court, pursuant to the mandate from this court, plaintiff appeals, and the defendant in error moves the dismissal of such appeal. In our judgment the motion should be sustained. It was the duty of the plaintiff to plead all of the facts which would afford him any relief in the case when it was tried the first time in the court below. This court took the record as it found it, and from the record the defendant was clearly entitled to the relief granted, and under the facts disclosed by the case-made, in equity and under the authorities, no other judgment should have been rendered. The trial court, under the mandate, had no discretion in the premises and, therefore, this appeal should be dismissed at the cost of appellant. (Stewart v. Salamon, 97 U. S. 361; Durant v. Essex County, 101 U. S. 555; Mackall v. Richerd, 116 U. S 45.)

It is so ordered.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1901 OK 37, 65 P. 941, 11 Okla. 64, 1901 Okla. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclung-v-harris-okla-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack