Miller v. State

1920 OK 324, 192 P. 1093, 79 Okla. 266, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 92
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 12, 1920
Docket9748
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1920 OK 324 (Miller v. State) 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
Miller v. State, 1920 OK 324, 192 P. 1093, 79 Okla. 266, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 92 (Okla. 1920).

Opinion

KANE, J.

This was an action upon an appearance bond, commenced by the defendant in error, plaintiff below, against the plaintiff in error, defendant below.

After the pleadings were all in, the trial court sustained a motion for judgment upon the pleadings filed by the plaintiff and entered judgment against the defendant, to reverse which this proceeding in error was commenced.

*267 The Attorney General, appearing for the state, has filed a brief in which he says:

“The petition alleges the signing of the bond by John Carlton,' principal, and plaintiff in errer as surety; that the said principal did not appear in the district court in Carter county according to the terms of said bond, and that thereupon the said principal and surety were duly called in court, and they failing to appear, the court declared said bond forfeited.
“The answer of plaintiff in error, among other things, contains a general denial. This puts in issue all the material allegations in the petition. It seems to us that the allegation that the principal in the bond failed to appear was a material allegation, and the same being put in issue, it required evidence to establish it, for which reason we feel that the trial court erred in sustaining motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

As we fully agree with the Attorney General, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and proceed with the trial of the cause.

PITCHFORD, JOHNSON, MeNEILL, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hays v. Wilkinson
72 F.2d 201 (Tenth Circuit, 1934)
Coker v. Watson
1926 OK 786 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1920 OK 324, 192 P. 1093, 79 Okla. 266, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-state-okla-1920.