McKone v. Hogan

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McKone v. Hogan

1916 OK 209, 155 P. 560, 55 Okla. 624, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 203

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 15, 1916

Docket6484

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1916 OK 209 (McKone v. Hogan) 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

McKone v. Hogan, 1916 OK 209, 155 P. 560, 55 Okla. 624, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 203 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

BRETT, C.

This action was commenced Tby S. W. Hogan, the defendant in error, against Isabella A. McKone and Roger McKone, the plaintiffs in error, to recover upon a note and foreclose a mortgage given on real estate to secure the payment of this note. A trial was had to the court without a jury, which resulted in a judgment for the amount prayed for and a decree of foreclosure.

The plaintiffs in error attempted to appeal from This judgment and decree; but the record shows upon its ■face that there were three exhibits- introduced' and admitted in evidence, over the objection of the plaintiffs in -error, and they are not in the record filed in this case. These exhibits are material evidence, and, to review the questions attempted to be raised .by this appeal, it is essential that this court examine this evidence. But, since it is not here, we cannot do this; and, the presumption Being in favor of the correctness of the judgment, we ■recommend that the judgment be 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

BRETT, C.

This action was commenced Tby S. W. Hogan, the defendant in error, against Isabella A. McKone and Roger McKone, the plaintiffs in error, to recover upon a note and foreclose a mortgage given on real estate to secure the payment of this note. A trial was had to the court without a jury, which resulted in a judgment for the amount prayed for and a decree of foreclosure.

The plaintiffs in error attempted to appeal from This judgment and decree; but the record shows upon its ■face that there were three exhibits- introduced' and admitted in evidence, over the objection of the plaintiffs in -error, and they are not in the record filed in this case. These exhibits are material evidence, and, to review the questions attempted to be raised .by this appeal, it is essential that this court examine this evidence. But, since it is not here, we cannot do this; and, the presumption Being in favor of the correctness of the judgment, we ■recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 209, 155 P. 560, 55 Okla. 624, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckone-v-hogan-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack