Beall v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 30 July 1898 |
| Parties | MOLLIE C. BEALL v. MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 APPEAL--Review--Assignment of Errors. Where the appellant fails to assigns as error the overruling of a motion for a new trial in the petition in error, no question is properly presented in this court to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below.
Error from the District Court of Logan County; before Frank Dale, District Judge.
Action by Mollie C. Beall against the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York and others. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
John D. DeBois and Allen & Ebey, for plaintiff in error.
Cotteral & Hornor, for defendant in error Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York; S. L. Overstreet and Herod & Widmer, for defendant in error Guthrie National Bank.
¶1 This was an action brought by the plaintiff in error in the district court of Logan county, Oklahoma Territory, to recover of the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York the sum of $ 800 on a paid-up insurance policy issued to F. M. Beall, the deceased husband of the plaintiff in error. J. W. McNeal and the Guthrie National Bank were made parties defendant to the petition. The Guthrie National Bank had possession of the policy, and claimed a certain interest therein, by virtue of an assignment by Fred Beall for the purpose of securing a loan made by the bank to Beall.
¶2 The insurance company, in its answer, admitted the full amount of the indebtedness, asked the court to determine the lawful and rightful owners of the amount due upon said policy, and that it be allowed to pay said amount into court, and be relieved from any further liability upon said policy. Harry W. Pentecost claimed that Fred Beall was indebted to him in the sum of $ 300 on account of a note that he paid as surety to the Guthrie National Bank, and as security for the payment of the amount he claimed a lien upon said insurance policy by virtue of an agreement made with the said Fred Beall.
¶3 Upon these issues the case was tried by the court. The court found that the defendant, the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, was indebted to the defendant, the Guthrie National Bank, the defendant, Harry W. Pentecost in his individual capacity, and the plaintiff, Mollie C. Beall, in the sum of $ 800 on account of the policy of insurance sued on in this case. The court made the following order:
"That the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York pay into court the sum of $ 800, and that the said $ 800 be, by the clerk of said court, paid in the following order: First, costs of this action; second, to the Guthrie National Bank the sum of $ 421; third, to Harry W. Pentecost, in his individual capacity, the sum of $ 375; and, fourth, any balance remaining after payment of said sums to be paid to the plaintiff, Mollie C. Beall." It was further ordered and decreed by the court: "That the said defendant, the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, be relieved and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riordan v. Horton
...as error no errors embraced or that should be embraced in such motion can be considered. (Martin v. Cassert (Okla.), 37 P. 586; Beal v. Ins. Co., 7 Okla. 285; Douglas Co. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259; Crawford v. Kansas City, 45 Kan. 474; McPherson v. Manning, 43 Kan. 129; Landauer v. Hoagland, 41 K......
- Turner v. First Nat. Bank
-
Nichols v. Dexter
...in error, and it therefore follows that none of the assignments of error, except the third, can be considered here. Beall v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 7 Okla. 285, 54 P. 474; Martin et al. v. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 P. 586; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 P. 1013; Meyer v. James, 29......
-
Beugler v. Polk
...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. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 P. 586; Whiteacre v. Nichols, 17 Okla. 387, 87 P. 865; Kimbriel v. Montgome......