Prochnau v. Marten
This text of 1914 OK 64 (Prochnau v. Marten) 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.
Opinion
Opinion by
This cause was dismissed by this court in a former opinion, for the reason that the final judgment had not been brought into the record. Since then the parties by agreement have been permitted to amend by bringing the judgment into the record, which is here certified as a transcript. The errors'assigned are: First, that the petition filed in this case . does not state a cause of action. Second, error in overruling the motion for new trial.
The second error alleged cannot be considered on transcript. None of the evidence is before the court. To have considered matters occurring at the trial the proceedings thereof must be preserved and presented here for review on bill of exceptions or case-made. Simpson v. Henderson-Sturges Piano Co., 31 Okla. 623, 122 Pac. 174; St. L. & S. F. R. Co. v. McCollum & Baker, 23 Okla. 899, 101 Pac. 1120.
The first ground alleged as error is not sound. We have examined the petition carefully, and think it very clearly and unquestionably states a cause of action. A very close study of appellant’s contentions in the brief and the one authority he cites fails to shake this conclusion. To set the petition out and discuss 'it would serve no good purpose, as no new or interesting question 'is presented.
The cause should 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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1914 OK 64, 138 P. 807, 41 Okla. 409, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prochnau-v-marten-okla-1914.