Baker v. Tate
Decision Date | 19 January 1914 |
Citation | 138 P. 171,41 Okla. 353,1914 OK 38 |
Parties | BAKER v. TATE. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In a motion for new trial the assignment, "error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application," eighth subdivision, section 5033, Rev Laws 1910, will embrace every ruling of the trial court during the trial of the cause properly excepted to at the time such ruling was made; but, unless the errors complained of were duly excepted to at the time and presented to the trial court in a motion for new trial, either in substantially the same language as the statute, or by specifically pointing out the errors complained of, they cannot be presented to this court for review by being assigned in a petition in error.
Plaintiff as executor sued defendant for the sum of $750, alleged to have been collected by defendant as attorney for the estate of which plaintiff was executor. Defendant answered, pleading that he had collected only $620, $220 of which was due him for fees and money disbursed, and that he had the balance $400, in his possession. He testified to having collected $620, $220 of which he had spent as his own fee, and that he still had $400 belonging to the heirs of the estate. Held, under the admissions in defendant's answer, and under defendant's own testimony, it was not error to instruct the jury for a verdict in favor of the executor in a sum not less than $400.
On the question of the amount of fees due defendant for his services, the court instructed the jury as follows: "In ascertaining the reasonable value of the attorney's fees of defendant, in the litigation wherein said fees are claimed, you will consider the nature of the litigation, the amount involved, and the interest at stake, the capacity and fitness of defendant to render said services, the services and labor rendered by defendant, the length of time required to perform same, the benefit received by plaintiff from said litigation in the way of recovery, and you will look to all the evidence in the case and exercise your sound discretion and judgment thereon, and allow defendant such reasonable amount as you believe he is justly entitled to, not exceeding the sum of $200, the amount claimed by him." Held, this instruction was not prejudicial to the rights of defendant.
Commissioners' Opinion. Division No. 2. Error from County Court, Seminole County; T. S. Cobb, Judge.
Action by H. M. Tate, executor of the estate of Dinah Johnson deceased, against J. A. Baker. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
C. Guy Cutlip, of Wewoka, for plaintiff in error.
Crump, Fowler & Skinner, of Wewoka, for defendant in error.
This was an action by H. M. Tate, as executor of the estate of Dinah Johnson, deceased, against J. A. Baker as attorney for the heirs of deceased, to recover the sum of $750 alleged to have been collected for said heirs by J. A. Baker as their attorney and not paid over to said executor. The issues involved are briefly stated in the pleadings, the petition being as follows: The answer is as follows: * * *" The cause was tried, resulting in a verdict and judgment for * * *"plaintiff in the sum of $500, and from such judgment and the order overruling motion for a new trial, defendant appeals upon eight assignments of error, seven of which are presented and argued in the brief.
However, the material errors occurring at the trial consisted principally in the rejection of testimony offered by defendant; and, while defendant has presented such errors in his petition in error, yet, as they were not presented to the trial court in the motion for a new trial, they cannot be considered here. In Glaser v. Glaser, 13 Okl. 389, 74 P. 944, this court, speaking through Burford, C.J., in a case presenting the identical question presented by the case at bar, held:
After setting out in full the motion for new trial the court continues: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial