Midland Valley R. Co. v. Green

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Midland Valley R. Co. v. Green

1913 OK 383, 132 P. 1086, 38 Okla. 305, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 363

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 10, 1913

Docket2577

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1913 OK 383 (Midland Valley R. Co. v. Green) 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

Midland Valley R. Co. v. Green, 1913 OK 383, 132 P. 1086, 38 Okla. 305, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 363 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, J.

This was an action commenced by the defen'dant in error, plaintiff below, against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, to recover the sum of $24 as stated by plaintiff in his bill of particulars for damages done him by the defendant- by running over and killing three of his hogs with their train. The defendant filed a general demurrer to the hill of particulars of the plaintiff, which after argument was overruled, and the defendant electing to stand upon its demurrer, judgment' was rendered against it. This proceeding was commenced to review the action of the court below in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. The rule is that:

“Where the bill of particulars- in a plain and direct manner states the facts constituting the. plaintiff’s claim or cause of action, it is sufficient under the statute, and technical objections to such pleadings should not reverse a case, unless it affirmatively- appears from the record that some substantial right has been prejudiced therebyT (Gavin v. Harrell, 27 Okla. 373, 113 Pac. 186, 35 L. R. A. [N. S.] 862, Ann. Cas, 1912B, 744; Holden v. Lynn, 30 Okla. 663, 120 Pac. 246, 38 L. R. A. [N. S.] 239; First Nat. Bank v. Collins, 30 Okla. 497, 120 Pac. 245; Stevens, etc., Co. v. Dulaney, 31 Okla. 608, 122 Pac. 166.)

We have examined the bill of particulars before us, and are of the opinion that it sufficiently complies with the rule.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

KANE, J.

This was an action commenced by the defen'dant in error, plaintiff below, against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, to recover the sum of $24 as stated by plaintiff in his bill of particulars for damages done him by the defendant- by running over and killing three of his hogs with their train. The defendant filed a general demurrer to the hill of particulars of the plaintiff, which after argument was overruled, and the defendant electing to stand upon its demurrer, judgment' was rendered against it. This proceeding was commenced to review the action of the court below in overruling the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s bill of particulars. The rule is that:

“Where the bill of particulars- in a plain and direct manner states the facts constituting the. plaintiff’s claim or cause of action, it is sufficient under the statute, and technical objections to such pleadings should not reverse a case, unless it affirmatively- appears from the record that some substantial right has been prejudiced therebyT (Gavin v. Harrell, 27 Okla. 373, 113 Pac. 186, 35 L. R. A. [N. S.] 862, Ann. Cas, 1912B, 744; Holden v. Lynn, 30 Okla. 663, 120 Pac. 246, 38 L. R. A. [N. S.] 239; First Nat. Bank v. Collins, 30 Okla. 497, 120 Pac. 245; Stevens, etc., Co. v. Dulaney, 31 Okla. 608, 122 Pac. 166.)

We have examined the bill of particulars before us, and are of the opinion that it sufficiently complies with the rule.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 383, 132 P. 1086, 38 Okla. 305, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midland-valley-r-co-v-green-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack