Ruby v. Barrett

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Ruby v. Barrett

1928 OK 235, 265 P. 1048, 130 Okla. 145, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 483

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 3, 1928

DocketNo. 17782

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1928 OK 235 (Ruby v. Barrett) 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

Ruby v. Barrett, 1928 OK 235, 265 P. 1048, 130 Okla. 145, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 483 (Okla. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

TBE3HEE, C.

In this cause the parties appear as in the trial court. There plaintiffs sued in damages for the death of their child caused by injuries inflicted by defendant through his alleged negligent operation of an automobile. Defendant answered by denial, and also interposed the defense of contributory negligence. The cause was tried to a jury, with the verdict and judgment thereon for the defendant. Of this plaintiffs complain on grounds that go to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment, which objections were first raised in the trial court by their motion for a new trial. For that reason defendant makes the point that plaintiffs’ appeal is ineffective to call into exercise the appellate jurisdiction of this court.

It has been repeatedly laid down as a rule of review that a motion for a new trial does not operate to supply that challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence in the trial court requisite to enable a consideration thereof on appeal. Norman v. Lambert, 64 Okla. 238, 167 Pac. 213; Milburn v. Miners’ & Citizens’ Bank, 101 Okla. 281, 226 Pac. 44; Federal *146 National Bank v. Sartin, 114 Okla. 244, 240 Pac. 617.

In' the state of the record, therefore, the grounds urged by plaintiffs for reversal of this cause cannot be considered, and for that reason the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

BENNETT, FOSTER, REID, and LEACH, Commissioners, concur.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

TBE3HEE, C.

In this cause the parties appear as in the trial court. There plaintiffs sued in damages for the death of their child caused by injuries inflicted by defendant through his alleged negligent operation of an automobile. Defendant answered by denial, and also interposed the defense of contributory negligence. The cause was tried to a jury, with the verdict and judgment thereon for the defendant. Of this plaintiffs complain on grounds that go to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment, which objections were first raised in the trial court by their motion for a new trial. For that reason defendant makes the point that plaintiffs’ appeal is ineffective to call into exercise the appellate jurisdiction of this court.

It has been repeatedly laid down as a rule of review that a motion for a new trial does not operate to supply that challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence in the trial court requisite to enable a consideration thereof on appeal. Norman v. Lambert, 64 Okla. 238, 167 Pac. 213; Milburn v. Miners’ & Citizens’ Bank, 101 Okla. 281, 226 Pac. 44; Federal *146 National Bank v. Sartin, 114 Okla. 244, 240 Pac. 617.

In' the state of the record, therefore, the grounds urged by plaintiffs for reversal of this cause cannot be considered, and for that reason the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

BENNETT, FOSTER, REID, and LEACH, Commissioners, concur.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1928 OK 235, 265 P. 1048, 130 Okla. 145, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruby-v-barrett-okla-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack