Kimbriel v. Montgomery, Case Number: 842
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | TURNER, C. J. |
| Citation | 1911 OK 168,28 Okla. 743,115 P. 1013 |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1911 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 842 |
| Parties | KIMBRIEL v. MONTGOMERY. |
1911 OK 168
115 P. 1013
28 Okla. 743
KIMBRIEL
v.
MONTGOMERY.
Case Number: 842
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: May 9, 1911
¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR--Assignment of Error--Scope of Review. Where plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of the 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.
2. LANDLORD AND TENANT--Relation of Lessor and Sublessee. As between the lessor and sublessee of the original lessee there is neither privity of estate nor privity of contract; the lessor cannot sue the sublessee upon the lessee's covenant to pay rent.
Edward Howell, J. T. McIntosh, and C. B. Cochran, for defendant in error.
Crook & Kyle, for plaintiff in error.
TURNER, C. J.
¶1 On December 4, 1909, W. G. Montgomery, defendant in error, sued A. L. Kimbriel, plaintiff in error, in the county court of Bryan county. His petition substantially states that on July 1, 1907, he and defendant entered into a certain lease, which he filed as an exhibit, whereby defendant leased of him a certain business house in Shawnee, Oklahoma, therein described, for a term beginning August 1, 1907, and ending July 31, 1908, for $ 75 per month, payable monthly in advance; that defendant took and held possession thereunder until the expiration of his term, at which time there was due and unpaid thereon the rent for May, June, and July, 1908, except $ 15 which was paid; that it was stipulated in said lease that at the expiration thereof defendant would return the property in as good condition as the same was at the time said lease was executed, "wear and tear and inevitable accident and loss by fire excepted;" that during the term a glass was broken out of the front window; that the same was not the result of an inevitable accident or caused by usual wear and tear or by fire; that defendant has failed and refused to replace the same or pay therefor--to plaintiff's damage $ 11.50 for said glass and $ 210 for rent, in all the sum of $ 221.50.
¶2 For answer defendant admitted the execution of the lease, but denied said damage. For further answer he pleaded that he retained possession thereof under said lease until about February 8, 1908, about which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leckie v. Dunbar, Case Number: 24899
...sublessee upon the original lessee's covenant to pay rent. Lunsford v. McCann et al., 67 Okla. 196, 169 P. 871; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 P. 1013; First State Bank of Keota v. Wadley, 103 Okla. 147, 229 P. 582. ¶7 In order to determine whether a particular instrument is an a......
-
Turner v. First Nat. Bank, Case Number: 2593
...87 P. 586; J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259, 54 P. 467; Whiteacre v. Nichols, 17 Okla. 387, 87 P. 865; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 P. 1013; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 P. 1016; Cox v. Lavine, 29 Okla. 312, 116 P. 920; McDonald v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 P. 920; B......
-
Nichols v. Dexter, Case Number: 5690
...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 Okla. 7, 115 P. 1016; George v. Moore, 32 Okla. 842, 124 P. 36; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 ......
-
O'Neil v. James, Case Number: 5172
...Martin v. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 P. 586; Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Bank, 12 Okla. 168, 70 P. 205; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 P. 1013; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 P. 1016; Stinchcomb et al. v. Myers, 28 Okla. 597, 115 P. 602; Haynes et al. v. Smith, 29 Okla. 7......
-
Leckie v. Dunbar, Case Number: 24899
...sublessee upon the original lessee's covenant to pay rent. Lunsford v. McCann et al., 67 Okla. 196, 169 P. 871; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 P. 1013; First State Bank of Keota v. Wadley, 103 Okla. 147, 229 P. 582. ¶7 In order to determine whether a particular instrument is an a......
-
Turner v. First Nat. Bank, Case Number: 2593
...87 P. 586; J. J. Douglas Co. v. Sparks, 7 Okla. 259, 54 P. 467; Whiteacre v. Nichols, 17 Okla. 387, 87 P. 865; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 P. 1013; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 P. 1016; Cox v. Lavine, 29 Okla. 312, 116 P. 920; McDonald v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 P. 920; B......
-
Nichols v. Dexter, Case Number: 5690
...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 Okla. 7, 115 P. 1016; George v. Moore, 32 Okla. 842, 124 P. 36; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 ......
-
O'Neil v. James, Case Number: 5172
...Martin v. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 P. 586; Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Bank, 12 Okla. 168, 70 P. 205; Kimbriel v. Montgomery, 28 Okla. 743, 115 P. 1013; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 P. 1016; Stinchcomb et al. v. Myers, 28 Okla. 597, 115 P. 602; Haynes et al. v. Smith, 29 Okla. 7......