Longest v. Langford

• Decision Date: 24 December 1917
• Docket Number: 8455.
• Citation: 169 P. 493,67 Okla. 155,1917 OK 626
• Parties: LONGEST et al. v. LANGFORD.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

169 P. 493

67 Okla. 155, 1917 OK 626

LONGEST et al. v. LANGFORD.

No. 8455.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

December 24, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

"An assignment of error which in effect merely alleges that the court erred in rendering judgment for one party and against the other presents nothing for this court to review."

"The petition in error should, in a concise and specific manner clearly point out the particular error or errors complained of and which it is sought to have reviewed."

Error from District Court, Jefferson County; Cham Jones, Judge.

Action between C.J. Longest and others and W. C. Langford. Judgment for the latter, and the former bring error. Affirmed.

J. H Harper, of Waurika, for plaintiffs in error.

Guy Green, of Waurika, for defendant in error.

RAINEY J.

The petition in error filed in this case contains the following assignments of error as grounds for reversal:

"(1) The court erred in overruling the plaintiffs in error's motion to vacate the order denying the petition of plaintiff in error to vacate and set aside the judgment.

(2) Said court erred in denying the plaintiffs in error's petition to vacate the judgment.

(3) The court erred in not rendering judgment for the plaintiffs in error vacating and setting aside said judgment.

(4) Said court erred in matters of law occurring at the trial.

(5) Because said court was not a legally constituted court under the laws and Constitution of the state of Oklahoma, an affidavit having been filed disqualifying the judge trying this petition in error to set in said cause."

The substance of the first three assignments of error is that the court erred in rendering judgment for the defendant in error and against the plaintiffs in error, and under the decisions of this court these assignments do not present anything for this court to review. Wilson v. Mann, 37 Okl. 475 132 P. 487; Board of Com'rs v. Oxley, 8 Okl 502, 58 P. 651; Willet v. Johnson, 13 Okl. 563, 76 P. 174; Gill v. Haynes, 28 Okl. 656, 115 P. 790; De Vitt v. El Reno, 28 Okl. 315, 114 P. 253.

Under the fourth assignment of error plaintiffs in error contend that J. H. Williams, one of the several defendants in the action against whom the judgment was rendered, had died after the institution of the suit, and before the trial, and that the joint judgment rendered against him and the other defendants was for this reason void. The record discloses that at a term of the court, preceding the term at which the...