Adams v. Norton, Case Number: 3017
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | SHARP, C. |
| Citation | 41 Okla. 497,139 P. 254,1914 OK 74 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 3017 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. NORTON et al. |
1914 OK 74
139 P. 254
41 Okla. 497
ADAMS
v.
NORTON et al.
Case Number: 3017
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: February 28, 1914
¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Presentation for Review--Errors at Trial--Denial of New Trial. Where plaintiff in error fails to assign as error, in his petition in error, the overruling of a motion for a new trial, no question which seeks to have reviewed errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court, and such alleged errors cannot, therefore, be considered.
Eugene B. Lawson, for plaintiff in error
James A. Veasey and L. A. Rowland, for defendant in error Henson Oil Company
W. J. Campbell, for defendants in error French and Hoge
SHARP, C.
¶1 Plaintiff in error, in her petition in error, assigns errors committed by the trial court in the following particulars: (1) Error in rendering judgment in favor of defendants French, Hoge, and Henson Oil Company, and against plaintiff for costs; (2) error in not rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants; (3) error in finding, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was not entitled to recover against said last-named defendants; (4) that the judgment is contrary to law; (5) that the judgment is contrary to the evidence; (6) that the judgment is contrary to both the law and evidence; (7) because of divers other errors appearing in the record.
¶2 A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, to which plaintiff excepted, but the action of the court in overruling said motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error in the petition in error in this court, and therefore none of the matters urged in her brief can be considered. All of the errors assigned are those charged to have occurred during the progress of the trial, and it is a rule well established that, where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of her motion for a new trial, in her petition in error, no question which seeks to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court. J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259, 54 P. 467; Beall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Okla. 285, 54 P....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Dexter, Case Number: 5690
...7, 115 P. 1016; George v. Moore, 32 Okla. 842, 124 P. 36; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; Adams v. Norton et al., 41 Okla. 497, 139 P. 254. ¶3 The only question properly presented for review is the sufficiency of the petition, as against a general demurrer. The petition......
-
Beugler v. Polk, Case Number: 4414
...alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court. Adams v. Norton et al., 41 Okla. 497, 139 P. 254; J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259, 54 P. 467; Beall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Okla. 285, 54 P. 474; Martin et al. v. Ga......
-
In re Mcgannon's Estate, Case Number: 4562
...error is that presented by the first assignment of error, Does the petition state a cause of action?" ¶7 And see, also, Adams v. Norton, 41 Okla. 497, 139 P. 254. We will now apply the principle declared by the above cases to the assignments of error which are set out in the petition in err......
-
Nichols v. Dexter, Case Number: 5690
...7, 115 P. 1016; George v. Moore, 32 Okla. 842, 124 P. 36; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; Adams v. Norton et al., 41 Okla. 497, 139 P. 254. ¶3 The only question properly presented for review is the sufficiency of the petition, as against a general demurrer. The petition......
-
Beugler v. Polk, Case Number: 4414
...alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court. Adams v. Norton et al., 41 Okla. 497, 139 P. 254; J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259, 54 P. 467; Beall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Okla. 285, 54 P. 474; Martin et al. v. Ga......
-
In re Mcgannon's Estate, Case Number: 4562
...error is that presented by the first assignment of error, Does the petition state a cause of action?" ¶7 And see, also, Adams v. Norton, 41 Okla. 497, 139 P. 254. We will now apply the principle declared by the above cases to the assignments of error which are set out in the petition in err......