Stinchcomb v. Myers

1911 OK 55, 115 P. 602, 28 Okla. 597, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 159
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 10, 1911
Docket634
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 1911 OK 55 (Stinchcomb v. Myers) 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
Stinchcomb v. Myers, 1911 OK 55, 115 P. 602, 28 Okla. 597, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 159 (Okla. 1911).

Opinion

*598 KANE, J.

This was an action to recover upon certain promissory notes. The cause was tried to the court and a jury, and there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $900. The case is here upon the petition in error of plaintiffs in error and a cross-petition in error by the defendant in error.

It appears from the record that no motion for a new' trial was filed. As the only errors assigned in the petition in error and cross-petition are matters relating to errors of law alleged to have occurred at the trial they cannot lie reviewed in the Supreme Court. It has long been the settled rule of practice in this court that errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered by the Supreme Court, unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such errors, has been made by the complaining party and acted upon by the trial court, and its ruling excepted to, and afterwards assigned for error in the Supreme Court. Beall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 7 Okla. 285, 54 Pac. 474; Glaser et al. v. Glaser et al., 13 Okla. 389, 74 Pac. 944; Bradford v. Brennan et al., 15 Okla. 47, 78 Pac. 387.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

DUNN, C. J., and HATES and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur; TURNER, J., not participating.

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

Related

Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Company
1964 OK 162 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1964)
Docker v. State
50 P.2d 762 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1935)
Archerd v. Ware
1925 OK 798 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Charles v. Prentice
1923 OK 12 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Lawyer-Cuff Co. v. Bland
1920 OK 340 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Wells v. McArthur
1920 OK 96 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Witherspoon v. Smith
1916 OK 797 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Aaron v. American Nat. Bank
159 P. 246 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Jordan v. Mullendore
1916 OK 745 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Vandenburg v. Winne
1915 OK 604 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Gast v. Barnes
1914 OK 507 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Avery v. Hays
1914 OK 378 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
O'Neil v. James
1914 OK 190 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Winsley
1913 OK 523 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Bettis v. Cargile
1912 OK 534 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Crump v. State
1912 OK CR 214 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1912)
Kee v. Park
1912 OK 259 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Leake
1912 OK 278 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Martin v. Hubbard
1912 OK 136 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
James v. Jackson
1911 OK 400 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1911 OK 55, 115 P. 602, 28 Okla. 597, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stinchcomb-v-myers-okla-1911.