White v. State

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

White v. State

1935 OK 1212, 53 P.2d 675, 175 Okla. 522, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 925

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 17, 1935

DocketNo. 25939.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1935 OK 1212 (White v. State) 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

White v. State, 1935 OK 1212, 53 P.2d 675, 175 Okla. 522, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 925 (Okla. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

WELCH, J.

The governing facts are quite simpar to the facts in Johnson v. State, 173 Okla. 508, 49 P. (2d) 141, and the rules of law announced in that decision are controlling in this case. Here the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objection to the introduction of any evidence. This for the reason that the complaint showed by positive averment that the child was born much more than three years before the action was commenced, and there was no effort to. plead facts to toll the statute of limitations, or to take the cause out of the operation of the statute.

If the proper ruling had been made on defendant’s objection to the introduction of evidence, an amended complaint might have been proper, or there might have been some request to amend the complaint, but the cause of action as now alleged is barred by the statute of limitations.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to sustain defendant’s contentions that the cause of action as now alleged is so barred, without prejudice, however, to the right to make application to amend.

McNEILL, C.'j., and BAYLESS, PHELPS, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

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

WELCH, J.

The governing facts are quite simpar to the facts in Johnson v. State, 173 Okla. 508, 49 P. (2d) 141, and the rules of law announced in that decision are controlling in this case. Here the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s objection to the introduction of any evidence. This for the reason that the complaint showed by positive averment that the child was born much more than three years before the action was commenced, and there was no effort to. plead facts to toll the statute of limitations, or to take the cause out of the operation of the statute.

If the proper ruling had been made on defendant’s objection to the introduction of evidence, an amended complaint might have been proper, or there might have been some request to amend the complaint, but the cause of action as now alleged is barred by the statute of limitations.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to sustain defendant’s contentions that the cause of action as now alleged is so barred, without prejudice, however, to the right to make application to amend.

McNEILL, C.'j., and BAYLESS, PHELPS, and GIBSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1935 OK 1212, 53 P.2d 675, 175 Okla. 522, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-okla-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack