Vann v. Board of Ed., Town of Lenapah

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Vann v. Board of Ed., Town of Lenapah

1924 OK 781, 229 P. 1115, 102 Okla. 286, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 200

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 23, 1924

Docket14923

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1924 OK 781 (Vann v. Board of Ed., Town of Lenapah) 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

Vann v. Board of Ed., Town of Lenapah, 1924 OK 781, 229 P. 1115, 102 Okla. 286, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 200 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment was rendered in this cause August 31. 1923. Plaintiff’s motion for new trial was not filed until October 12, 1923, and after the term at which the judgment was rendered. Pive grounds were stated in the motion. The first ground alleged is irregularity in the" proceedings of the court by which plaintiffs were prevented from having a fair trial. The district court may vacate or modify its judgments or orders, after the terms at which such judgment or order was made, for irregularity in the proceedings as provided in subdivision 3 of section 810, Comp. Stats. 1921. However, the record in the instant case fails- to point out the irregularity if any was committed. The 2d, 3rd, and 5th grounds assigned are errors of law occurring at the trial, which must be presented within the three-day period. The 4th and remaining' ground presented is newly discovered evidence. Section 576, Comp. Stat. 1921, provides the procedure applicable where a new trial is sought on this ground after the term at which the decision was rendered. None of the requirements provided in this section were complied with or waived. A substantial compliance with these provisions was necessary. Dougal v. White, 89 Okla. 107, 213 Okla. 868; Anderson v. Lynch, 98 Okla. 137, 221 Pac. 415.

The record presents nothing that can be reviewed, except errors of law occurring at the trial, and no motion for a new trial being filed within 3 days, the appeal is dismissed. - J

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment was rendered in this cause August 31. 1923. Plaintiff’s motion for new trial was not filed until October 12, 1923, and after the term at which the judgment was rendered. Pive grounds were stated in the motion. The first ground alleged is irregularity in the" proceedings of the court by which plaintiffs were prevented from having a fair trial. The district court may vacate or modify its judgments or orders, after the terms at which such judgment or order was made, for irregularity in the proceedings as provided in subdivision 3 of section 810, Comp. Stats. 1921. However, the record in the instant case fails- to point out the irregularity if any was committed. The 2d, 3rd, and 5th grounds assigned are errors of law occurring at the trial, which must be presented within the three-day period. The 4th and remaining' ground presented is newly discovered evidence. Section 576, Comp. Stat. 1921, provides the procedure applicable where a new trial is sought on this ground after the term at which the decision was rendered. None of the requirements provided in this section were complied with or waived. A substantial compliance with these provisions was necessary. Dougal v. White, 89 Okla. 107, 213 Okla. 868; Anderson v. Lynch, 98 Okla. 137, 221 Pac. 415.

The record presents nothing that can be reviewed, except errors of law occurring at the trial, and no motion for a new trial being filed within 3 days, the appeal is dismissed. - J

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 781, 229 P. 1115, 102 Okla. 286, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vann-v-board-of-ed-town-of-lenapah-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack