Boyd v. Bryan
| Decision Date | 06 July 1901 |
| Citation | 65 P. 940,11 Okla. 56,1901 OK 28 |
| Parties | BOYD et al. v. BRYAN. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Errors occurring on the trial of a cause will not be reviewed in this court, unless presented to the trial court on motion for new trial.
2. The eighth statutory cause for new trial. viz. "error of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the party making the application," will, when embraced in the motion for new trial, present to the trial court any objection or exception properly made and saved during the progress of the trial.
3. An assignment of error in the appellate court, to the effect "that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial," will present for the consideration of the supreme court every ground for new trial properly embraced in said motion.
4. This court will not review the instructions given on the trial of a cause, unless the instruction is excepted to at the trial the exception made to appear of record, and the objection pointed out to the trial court on motion for new trial.
5. This court will not disturb the verdict of a jury based upon conflicting and contradictory evidence.
Error from district court, Greer county; before Justice B. F Burwell.
Action by Annie Bryan against the Chicago Live-Stock Commission Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants Boyd and others bring error. Affirmed.
Garrett & Thacker, for plaintiffs in error.
J. A Powers, Duncan G. Smith, and James R. Keaton, for defendant in error.
This was an action brought by Annie Bryan in the district court of Greer county against the Chicago Live-Stock Commission Company and others to recover the value of a number of cattle which it was alleged that the defendants had unlawfully seized and converted. The cause was tried to a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the difference between the value of the cattle and the amount of a chattel mortgage held by the Chicago Live-Stock Commission Company on said cattle. The defendants appealed, and are the plaintiffs in error in this cause.
The petition in error contains three specific assignments of error, only one of which presents any question for our consideration. The third assignment is "that the court erred in overruling defendants' motion for a new trial." This presents for review every alleged error arising during the progress of the trial which was properly saved, and is embraced in the motion for new trial. The other assignments in the petition in error attempt to raise original objections in this court to matters occurring during the trial, and not embraced in the motion for new trial. This practice is not permissible in this court. In order to save and present a question for review in this court, relating to a matter which occurred during the trial of a cause, due exception must have been taken in the trial court at the time the ruling was made, and the ruling of the trial court and the exception must appear in the record. Such objection must then be incorporated in the motion for new trial under some one of the statutory grounds for new trial, and must be presented to the trial court for its action. The ruling of the trial court upon the motion for new trial may then be assigned as error on appeal, and an assignment or error, to the effect "that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial," presents to this court for review every cause for new trial that was properly embraced in said motion. It is not necessary, as is frequently done, to say in the petition in error "that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial," and then follow this with another assignment to the effect "that the court erred in not granting a new trial." The statutory grounds for...
To continue reading
Request your trial