Cleveland v. Lampkin
| Decision Date | 15 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 7446 |
| Parties | CLEVELAND et al. v. LAMPKIN et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Appeal and Error--Assignments of Error--Overruling of Motion for New Trial--Review. Where the plaintiff in error falls to assign as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court has no power to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial.
Morse, Standeven & Willingham, for plaintiffs in error.
Zink & Cline, for defendants in error.
¶1 Motion is presented to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that plaintiffs in error have failed to assign as error the overruling of their motion for new trial. The only errors assigned here are those alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial relative to the giving of instructions and the exclusion of certain evidence. The established rule in this jurisdiction is that:
"Where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court has no power to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial." O'Neil et al. v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141.
¶2 The motion is sustained, and the cause dismissed.
¶3 By the Court: It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riter-Conley Mfg. Co. v. Wryn
......679, 155 P. 245; Nichols v. Dexter, 52 Okla. 152, 152 P. 817; Millus v. Lowrey Bros., 63 Okla. 261, 164 P. 663, L.R.A. 1918B, 336; Cleveland v. Lampkin, 65 Okla. 159, 165 P. 159. ¶8 It follows that the only question presented for review, is as to the constitutionality of ......
- In re Byford's Will
-
Paulsen v. W. Elec. Co.
......Cleveland et al. v. Lampkin et al., 65 Okla. 159, 165 P. 159; Witherspoon v. Smith et al., 61 Okla. 26, 160 P. 57; Millus et ux. v. Lowrey Bros., 63, Okla. ......
- Cleveland v. Lampkin