Napier v. Dilday

1913 OK 388, 132 P. 1085, 38 Okla. 365, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 376
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided June 10, 1913·No. 4810·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

The record shows that the finding made against the plaintiffs in error, upon which the judgment was rendered, was with the consent of their counsel. Consent ends all contention between the parties,- and there is nothing to- review on appeal. Baker v. Van Ness et al., 37 Okla. 122, 130 Pac. 536; Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co., 28 Ore. 9, 40 Pac. 406, 1014, 52 Am. St. Rep. 759, and authorities therein cited. ■

The proceeding in error is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Napier v. Dilday, 1913 OK 388, 132 P. 1085, 38 Okla. 365, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 376 (Okla. 1913).

1913 OK 388 (Napier v. Dilday) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Conterez v. O'DONNELL
2002 OK 67 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2002)
Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority v. Borelli
1992 OK CIV APP 108 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1992)