Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Buie

1958 OK 93, 324 P.2d 540, 1958 Okla. LEXIS 375
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 8, 1958
DocketNo. 37824
StatusPublished

This text of 1958 OK 93 (Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Buie) 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
Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Buie, 1958 OK 93, 324 P.2d 540, 1958 Okla. LEXIS 375 (Okla. 1958).

Opinion

HALLEY, Justice.

This action was commenced by Billie Joe Wilson, a minor by his father and next friend Roland Wilson and Roland Wilson for himself to recover in damages for personal injury.

At the conclusion of the evidence offered for the plaintiffs defendant demurred and' the trial court sustained the demurrer tO' the evidence and thereupon entered judgment for the defendant. Plaintiffs did not file a motion for new trial.

Plaintiffs have appealed and raise the single issue that the trial court erred in. sustaining the demurrer to the evidence.

In order to review the action of the trial court in sustaining the demurrer to the evidence it is necessary to file a motion for new trial. Lowenstein v. Todd, 40 Okl. 18, 135 P. 737; Tyler v. Tyler, 44 Okl. 411, 144 P. 1023; Johnson v. Board of Com’rs of Logan County, 125 Okl. 96, 256 P. 900; Sac & Fox Oil Co. v. Owens, 133 Okl. 96, 271 P. 240; Hunt v. Tribune [541]*541Publishing Co., 172 Okl. 139, 44 P.2d 889.

A ruling on the sufficiency of the evidence can only be presented to the Supreme Court after a determination of a motion for new trial. James v. Jackson, 30 Okl. 190, 120 P. 288; Stump v. Porter, 31 Okl. 157, 120 P. 639; Insurance Co. of North America v. Little, 34 Okl. 449, 125 P. 1098; Malleck v. Thomas, 109 Okl. 95, 234 P. 1107. In Stump v. Porter, supra, it is stated:

“The ruling on a demurrer to the evidence is a decision occurring on the trial; and, in order to enable the Supreme Court to review such ruling, it is necessary that a motion for new trial be filed within the time prescribed by law.”

Appeal dismissed.

CORN, V. C. J., and WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD and JACKSON, JJ., concur. WELCH, C. J., and DAVISON, JOHNSON and GARLILE, JJ., dissent.

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

Related

James v. Jackson
1911 OK 400 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Johnson v. Board of Com'rs of Logan County
1927 OK 156 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
Hunt v. Tribune Publishing Co.
1935 OK 551 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Insurance Co. of North America v. Little
1912 OK 369 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Stump v. Porter
1912 OK 74 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Tyler v. Tyler
1914 OK 631 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Sac & Fox Oil Co. v. Owens
1928 OK 571 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Lowenstein v. Todd
1913 OK 573 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Malleck v. Thomas
1925 OK 257 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1958 OK 93, 324 P.2d 540, 1958 Okla. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-ex-rel-wilson-v-buie-okla-1958.