McGrath v. Campbell

1927 OK 123, 255 P. 1015, 124 Okla. 286, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 231
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 19, 1927
Docket18028
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 1927 OK 123 (McGrath v. Campbell) 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
McGrath v. Campbell, 1927 OK 123, 255 P. 1015, 124 Okla. 286, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 231 (Okla. 1927).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

From the judgment of the trial court in favor of the defendants in error, the plaintiff in error appeals to this court.- There is but one alleged error as-.signed in the petition in error as a cause for reversal, as follows, to wit:

“Said court erred in not rendering judgment for the plaintiff in error on pleadings.”

The only reference to motions for judgment on the pleadings pointed out by plaintiff in error in his brief is as follows:

«* * * Tlie plaintiff, J. O. Campbell, and the defendants, Southwestern Mortgage Company, a corporation, and Home Savings & Loan Association, a corporation, eacli moves for judgment on the pleadings, as against the defendants M. McGrath, Bessie McGrath, and M. McGrath, trustee for Bessie McGrath. Wher'eupon M. McGrath asks leave to amend his answer and cross-petition, which leave is granted, and amendment is made. Thereupon the motions for judgment on the pleadings are .withdrawn. * * *”

In this w'e fail to" find any request upon the part of the plaintiff in error- for judgment on pleadings and are unable to understand how the plaintiff in error may predicate prejudicial error upon this record.

“In order to properly pr'esent a question to the Supreme Court for review, the record must affirmatively show that the alleged error complained of was presented to the trial court, and either ignored or decided adversely to the complaining party; and, unless it is thus presented to the trial court and an opportunity ther'e given to pass upon it, the same will not be considered by this court on appeal.” Marshik v. Farmers’ Union CoOperative Exchange, 123 Okla. 76, 250 Pac. 136.

We have examined the transcript of the record filed in this court, and failed to find where plaintiff in error presents to the trial court any motion or request for judgment on the pleadings.

The alleged error not having been presented to the trial court, and no opportunity having be'en given it to pass upon the same, there is nothing before this court for review, and upon motion of defendant in error the appeal in this cause is dismissed.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Ray I. Jones Service Co.
475 P.2d 139 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1970)
Joe Hodges Transfer & Storage, Co. v. Keeffe
1941 OK 152 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1941)
Baumgart v. Bryant
1939 OK 156 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Mitchell v. Dadas
1934 OK 128 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Meisinger v. Employees Bldg. & Loan Ass'n
1930 OK 576 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Weil & Gatling v. Caddel & Jacobs
1929 OK 108 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Wilson Motor Co. v. Dunn
1928 OK 123 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1927 OK 123, 255 P. 1015, 124 Okla. 286, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgrath-v-campbell-okla-1927.