W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Welborn

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Welborn

1937 OK 733, 64 P.2d 299, 178 Okla. 623, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 734

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 9, 1937

DocketNo. 27509.

StatusPublished

This text of 1937 OK 733 (W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Welborn) 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

W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. Welborn, 1937 OK 733, 64 P.2d 299, 178 Okla. 623, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 734 (Okla. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in the trial court. The petition in error presents only such errors as can be reviewed 'by this court after the filing and determination of a motion for new trial. It appears by an examination of the order overruling the motion for new trial that no exceptions were saved to the action of the trial court in overruling the same. This court has held that it is necessary to except to the order overruling the motion for new trial, and where no exception is saved to such ruling, the errors occurring at the trial cannot be presented for consideration to this court. National Surety Co. v. City of Hobart, 65 Okla. 68, 162 P. 954; Jordan v. Mullendore, 59 Okla. 245, 158 P. 895.

The appeal is dismissed.

OSBORN, Y. C. J., and BUSBY, PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. McNEILL, C. X, and RILEY, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JJ., absent.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in the trial court. The petition in error presents only such errors as can be reviewed 'by this court after the filing and determination of a motion for new trial. It appears by an examination of the order overruling the motion for new trial that no exceptions were saved to the action of the trial court in overruling the same. This court has held that it is necessary to except to the order overruling the motion for new trial, and where no exception is saved to such ruling, the errors occurring at the trial cannot be presented for consideration to this court. National Surety Co. v. City of Hobart, 65 Okla. 68, 162 P. 954; Jordan v. Mullendore, 59 Okla. 245, 158 P. 895.

The appeal is dismissed.

OSBORN, Y. C. J., and BUSBY, PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. McNEILL, C. X, and RILEY, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JJ., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1937 OK 733, 64 P.2d 299, 178 Okla. 623, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-t-rawleigh-co-v-welborn-okla-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack