Bd. of Comm'rs of Woods Cnty. v. Oxley
| Decision Date | 25 August 1899 |
| Citation | 8 Okla. 502,58 P. 651,1899 OK 90 |
| Parties | BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS COUNTY v. W. E. OXLEY |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. APPEAL.--Assignment of Errors. A party seeking the reversal of a judgment in the supreme court should specifically and clearly allege in the petition in error the errors sought to be reviewed, as provided by section 561 of our Code of Civil Procedure.
2. SAME--Indefinite Petition. Hence, Where a petition in error alleges that the judgment was for the defendant in error, when it should have been for the plaintiff, without stating what errors had been committed, and by whom, is indefinite, and does not set forth the errors complained of as required by said section of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Error from the District Court of Woods County; before Jno. L. McAtee, District Judge.
Action by W. E. Oxley against the board of county commissioners of Woods county. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Jesse J. Dunn, County Attorney, for plaintiff in error.
T. J. Womack, for defendant in error.
¶1 The defendant in error, W. E. Oxley, on October 14, 1896, filed a duly verified claim with the board of county commissioners of Woods county for $ 63, for services rendered as a member of the county board of examiners during the years 1895 and 1896. On January 19, 1897, the claim was passed upon, and disallowed by the board of county commissioners. From the disallowance of the claim, Oxley appealed to the district court of said county, where the case was tried by the court, a jury having been waived by both parties, and judgment rendered for the amount of Oxley's claim. From this judgment the county brings the case here on appeal, on what purports to be a case-made.
¶2 It appears from the record that no motion for a new trial was filed in the court below, and the only question assigned in the petition in error of the plaintiff in error is as follows: "The plaintiff alleges for error the judgment entered for said plaintiff below, W. E. Oxley, and avers that said judgment should have been for defendant below, the board of county commissioners." We do not think that this assignment of error is sufficient to properly present any question for review in this court. An assignment of error which simply states that the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendant raises no question which is reviewable in this court. Such an assignment of error does not state what erroneous ruling caused the rendition of judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the trial court. It is general and indefinite, and fails to direct our attention to any specific error alleged to have been committed by the trial court. A party seeking the reversal of a judgment should specifically and clearly set forth the errors complained of, as provided by section 561 of our Code of Civil Procedure.
¶3 In Brown v. Rhodes, 1 Kan. 359, it was held that a petition in error alleging that the judgment was for the defendant in error, when it ought to have been for the plaintiff, without stating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Vitt v. City of El Reno
...petition in error are insufficient as assignments of error to raise any question for review in this court. Board of Commissioners of Woods County v. Oxley, 8 Okla. 502, 58 P. 651; Fooshee v. State, 3 Okla. Crim. 666, 108 P. 554; Beck v. Baden, 3 Kan. App. 157, 42 P. 845; Eldridge v. Deets, ......
-
Nease v. Nat'l Bank of Commerce At Hugo
...since this court has repeatedly held that they are too indefinite and present nothing for review. Board of County Commissioners of Woods County v. Oxley, 8 Okla. 502, 58 P. 651; Gill et al. v. Haynes, 28 Okla. 656, 115 P. 790; Wilson v. Mann, 37 Okla. 475, 132 P. 487; Connelly et al. v. Ada......
- Durant v. Nesbit
- Standard Stone Co. v. Greer