Schriber v. Buckner

1907 OK 41, 90 P. 10, 18 Okla. 298, 1907 Okla. LEXIS 114
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 14, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1907 OK 41 (Schriber v. Buckner) 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
Schriber v. Buckner, 1907 OK 41, 90 P. 10, 18 Okla. 298, 1907 Okla. LEXIS 114 (Okla. 1907).

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Burford, C. J.:

This cause is presented by petition in error and case made duty authenticated.

The defendant in error upon a trial before a jury recovered a verdict and judgment for $145.00 and costs for serr vices as attorney for the plaintiff in error. The only errors relied upon are the lack of evidence to warrant the verdict, and the incorrectness of certain instructions. Neither of these propositions can he correctly determined without an examination of the evidence introduced on the trial. The ease made contains no recital or averment that it contains *299 all the evidence submitted on the trial of the cause. In the absence of such recital there is nothing for us to consider. Sawyer Lumber Co. v. Champlin Lumber Co., 16 Okla. 90, and cases cited.

Attached to the case is the following statement, signed by counsel for defendant, to wit :

“'The above and foregoing case made in the case of C. R. Buckner v. John Schriber, Sr., contains a full, true and correct copy and statement of all the pleadings, motions, judgments, entries and orders of court made in said cause, together with all the evidence. and all the objections and exceptions made by either party to the orders or rulings of the court, and all the objections and exceptions made in said cause."

This statement does not supply the place of the averment required, that the case does contain all the evidence introduced on the trial of the cause.

The judgment of the district court of Garfield county is affirmed, at the costs of the plaintiff in error.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Insurance Co. of North America v. Gish, Brook & Co.
1909 OK 279 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
Wagner v. Sattley Mfg. Co.
1909 OK 17 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1907 OK 41, 90 P. 10, 18 Okla. 298, 1907 Okla. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schriber-v-buckner-okla-1907.