Thomason v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Thomason v. Thompson

1918 OK 755, 177 P. 553, 71 Okla. 280, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 943

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 31, 1918

Docket8706

StatusPublished

This text of 1918 OK 755 (Thomason v. Thompson) 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

Thomason v. Thompson, 1918 OK 755, 177 P. 553, 71 Okla. 280, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 943 (Okla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

OWEN, J:

This action was brought by the defendant in error, an attorney at law, to recover for legal services rendered to W). R. Badgett, deceased, during his lifetime. The ease wa's tried to the court without a jury. A motion for a new trial was filed by plaintiff in error, but no exception saved to the action of the court in overruling this motion. An appeal was prayed at the time and plaintiff in error argues that the prayer for an appeal amounted to an exception.

This court has repeatedly held that, where no exception is taken to the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial, it will be presumed that the losing par.y did -not intend to rety on that ruling as error. An appeal is taken in order to bring before this court all rulings of the eou.-t that have been excepted to in the trial. The appeal has not reference simply to the overruling of the motion for new trial, but to all errors of the court, some of which may he presented by transcript -of the record proper.

*281 The errors assigned are based upon the action of the court in permitting the plaintiff below to testify in his own behalf in support of his claim for service, because, as is alleged, the plaintiff was incompetent as a witness to testify regarding the transactions had with the deceased, and to the action of the court in not sustaining motion of the defendant for' judgment at the conclusion of the evidence of the plaintiff.

These assignments can only be presented by a case-made or 'bill of exceptions. No assignment of error is urged that may be determined on the record proper.

That a failure to except to the order of the trial court in overruling motion for new trial amounts to a waiver of error as to such rulings, and all alleged errors occurring at the trial for. which a new. trial might be granted, was held in the case of National Surety Co. v. City of Hobart, 65 Okla. 68, 162 Pac 954, and to the same effect ax-e the following cases in this court: Wamsley v. Territory, 3 Okla. 279, 41 Pac. 600; City of Enid v. Wigger, 15 Okla. 507, 85 Pac. 697 ; Alexander v. Okla. City, 22 Okla. 838, 98 Pac. 943; Martin v. Hubbard. 32 Okla. 2, 121 Pac. 620; Kee v. Park et al., 32 Okla. 302, 122 Pac. 712: St. L. & I. M. R, Co. v. Winsley, 39 Okla. 374. 135 Pac. 19; Jones v. Jones, 43 Okla. 361, 143 Pac. 37. And to the same effect is the ease of Fletcher et al. v. Waring, 137 Ind. 159, 36 N. E. 896, and authorities there cited.

The case-made failing to show the defendant excepted to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.

All the Justices concur except KANE and RAINEY, JJ., not participating.

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

OWEN, J:

This action was brought by the defendant in error, an attorney at law, to recover for legal services rendered to W). R. Badgett, deceased, during his lifetime. The ease wa's tried to the court without a jury. A motion for a new trial was filed by plaintiff in error, but no exception saved to the action of the court in overruling this motion. An appeal was prayed at the time and plaintiff in error argues that the prayer for an appeal amounted to an exception.

This court has repeatedly held that, where no exception is taken to the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial, it will be presumed that the losing par.y did -not intend to rety on that ruling as error. An appeal is taken in order to bring before this court all rulings of the eou.-t that have been excepted to in the trial. The appeal has not reference simply to the overruling of the motion for new trial, but to all errors of the court, some of which may he presented by transcript -of the record proper.

*281 The errors assigned are based upon the action of the court in permitting the plaintiff below to testify in his own behalf in support of his claim for service, because, as is alleged, the plaintiff was incompetent as a witness to testify regarding the transactions had with the deceased, and to the action of the court in not sustaining motion of the defendant for' judgment at the conclusion of the evidence of the plaintiff.

These assignments can only be presented by a case-made or 'bill of exceptions. No assignment of error is urged that may be determined on the record proper.

That a failure to except to the order of the trial court in overruling motion for new trial amounts to a waiver of error as to such rulings, and all alleged errors occurring at the trial for. which a new. trial might be granted, was held in the case of National Surety Co. v. City of Hobart, 65 Okla. 68, 162 Pac 954, and to the same effect ax-e the following cases in this court: Wamsley v. Territory, 3 Okla. 279, 41 Pac. 600; City of Enid v. Wigger, 15 Okla. 507, 85 Pac. 697 ; Alexander v. Okla. City, 22 Okla. 838, 98 Pac. 943; Martin v. Hubbard. 32 Okla. 2, 121 Pac. 620; Kee v. Park et al., 32 Okla. 302, 122 Pac. 712: St. L. & I. M. R, Co. v. Winsley, 39 Okla. 374. 135 Pac. 19; Jones v. Jones, 43 Okla. 361, 143 Pac. 37. And to the same effect is the ease of Fletcher et al. v. Waring, 137 Ind. 159, 36 N. E. 896, and authorities there cited.

The case-made failing to show the defendant excepted to the action of the trial court in overruling the motion for a new trial, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.

All the Justices concur except KANE and RAINEY, JJ., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 755, 177 P. 553, 71 Okla. 280, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomason-v-thompson-okla-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack