National Refrigerator & Butchers' Supply Co. v. Elsing

1911 OK 277, 116 P. 790, 29 Okla. 334, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 304
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 11, 1911
Docket975
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 1911 OK 277 (National Refrigerator & Butchers' Supply Co. v. Elsing) 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
National Refrigerator & Butchers' Supply Co. v. Elsing, 1911 OK 277, 116 P. 790, 29 Okla. 334, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 304 (Okla. 1911).

Opinion

KANE, J.

The only ground for reversal urged in the above-entitled cause is that the court below abused its discretion in granting a new trial. We have examined the record, and cannot agree with counsel for plaintiff in error. The motion for a new trial contains substantially all the statutory grounds, and it is not clear from the record upon what ground a new trial was granted. Under similar circumstances this court held:

“The granting of a new trial being so much within the discretion of the trial court, this court will not reverse an order of such court granting a new trial, unless error is clearly established in respect to some pure, simple, and unmixed question of law.” (State Bank of Lawton v. Chattanooga State Bank of Chattanooga et al., 23 Okla. 767, 101 Pac. 1118.)

Another and later case wherein the authorities are more fully collected, which passes. upon the question of abuse of discretion, is Hogan et al. v. Bailey, 27 Okla. 15, 110 Pac. 890. The fourth paragraph of the syllabus reads as follows:

“This court will not reverse the ruling of the trial court granting a new trial, unless it can be seen beyond all reasonable *335 doubt that the trial court has manifestly and materially erred with respect to some pure, simple, and unmixed question of law, and that, except for such error, the ruling of the trial court would not have been so made. The Supreme Court will very seldom and very reluctantly reverse the decision or order of the trial court which grants a new trial.”

The 'judgment of the court below must be affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Creekmore v. City of Tulsa
1929 OK 258 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Eldred v. Pittsburg County Ry. Co.
1923 OK 904 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Howerton v. State Bank of Miltonvale
1923 OK 475 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
City of Claremore v. Southwestern Surety Ins. Co.
1921 OK 200 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Everly v. Northcutt
1918 OK 681 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. James
159 P. 1109 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Freeman v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank
1915 OK 747 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Rogers v. Quabner
1913 OK 730 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Sipes v. Dickinson
1913 OK 668 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Wooten
1913 OK 346 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Hughes v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
1913 OK 141 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Fisher
1913 OK 152 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Young v. Dunbar
1912 OK 688 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Sharp v. Choctaw Ry. & Lighting Co.
1912 OK 548 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Diamond v. Shaw
1912 OK 517 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Eslick v. Mott
1912 OK 347 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Davis v. Stillwell
1912 OK 344 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Chapman v. Mason
1911 OK 494 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1911 OK 277, 116 P. 790, 29 Okla. 334, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-refrigerator-butchers-supply-co-v-elsing-okla-1911.