Severs v. Bull

35 S.W. 234, 1 Indian Terr. 8, 1896 Indian Terr. LEXIS 54
Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory·Decided February 15, 1896·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Lewis, J.

The fact of appellee’s nonresidence is not shown by the record. No error, therefore, is apparent in the action of the trial court in overruling the motion to dismiss. A motion for a new trial was not filed, nor was the action of the trial court upon the motion to dismiss preserved by bill of exceptions, both of which things were necessary to be done to enable this court to review the error complained of. See case of Severs vs. Trust Co. (this day decided) 1 Ind. Ter. 2. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Severs v. Bull, 35 S.W. 234, 1 Indian Terr. 8, 1896 Indian Terr. LEXIS 54 (Conn. 1896).

35 S.W. 234 (Severs v. Bull) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jett v. Sittle
64 S.W. 572 (Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory, 1901)