Sandridge v. Home Building & Loan Ass'n

1935 OK 407, 44 P.2d 944, 172 Okla. 298, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 240
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 9, 1935
DocketNo. 25458.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1935 OK 407 (Sandridge v. Home Building & Loan Ass'n) 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
Sandridge v. Home Building & Loan Ass'n, 1935 OK 407, 44 P.2d 944, 172 Okla. 298, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 240 (Okla. 1935).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff in error, defendant below, filed objections to the confirmation of sheriff’s sale of real estate. These objections were overruled and the sale was confirmed. Plaintiff in error brought this ruling- by transcript to this court for review. This appeal being by transcript, none of the evidence, if any, introduced is presented to this court. The trial court found the issues generally for the plaintiff below in the order confirming the sale.

No error appears on the face of the record.

In Kline et al. v. Evans, Trustee, et al., 103 Okla. 44, 229 P. 427, the court said:

“The ruling on a motion for confirmation of sale or objections thereto is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and unless it affirmatively appears that the trial judge has abused his discretion in the ruling, the action of the court will not be reversed on appeal.”

The court further said:

“It is only questions relating to and pertaining to the sheriff’s sale that may be heard on motion or objections to the confirmation of sale of real estate on execution.”

The action of the trial court is affirmed.

The Supreme Court acknowledges the aid of Attorneys Eugene Jordan, J. R. Keaton, and W. A. Lybrand- in the preparation of this opinion. These attorneys constituted an advisory committee selected by the State Bar, appointed by the Judicial Council, and approved by the Supreme Court. After the analysis of the law and facts was prepared by Mr. Lybrand and approved by Mr. Jordan and Mr. Keaton, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this court for examination and report to the court. Thereafter, upon consideration by a majority, of the court., this opinion was adopted.

McNEILL. C. J., OSBORN, Y. C. J., and BAYLESS, WELCH, and CORN, .JJ., concur.

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

Related

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Crutchfield
2006 OK CIV APP 95 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1935 OK 407, 44 P.2d 944, 172 Okla. 298, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandridge-v-home-building-loan-assn-okla-1935.