Mcguire v. Rash
Citation | 89 Okla. 132,1923 OK 200,214 P. 698 |
Decision Date | 03 April 1923 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 13166 |
Parties | McGUIRE v. RASH. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Record--Transcript--Sufficiency.
A case, to be reviewable on transcript, must contain a copy of the whole record, and a certificate of the clerk to the transcript showing on its face that parts of the record are omitted, and which undertakes to specify the parts that are included, is insufficient. Manley v. Halsell, 43 Okla. 402, 143 P. 193; Wade et al. v. Mitchell, 14 Okla. 168, 79 P. 95; Bruce v. Casey-Swasy Co., 13 Okla 554 75 P. 280; Walcher v. Stone, 15 Okla. 130, 79 P. 771; Fortune v. Parks et al., 29 Okla. 698, 119 P. 134; E. G. Rall Grain Co. v. First State Bank, 39 Okla. 788. 136 P. 744.
2. Same--Record--Motions and Rulings.
Motions and orders thereon are not parts of the record proper and cannot be brought into this court for review except by bill of exceptions or case-made.
Error from District Court, Carter County; Thos. W. Champion, Judge.
Action by W. M. Rash against C. Lincoln McGuire. From the judgment, defendant brings error. Dismissed.
G. G. McVay and Sigler & Jackson, for plaintiff in error.
C. L. McGuire, for defendant in error.
¶15 This case is attempted to be appealed by transcript, and the record is certified by the clerk as follows:
¶16 This certificate is not sufficient. It shows on its face that the transcript is not a full, true, and correct transcript of the record as provided in rule 17 of this court (47 Okla. viii), which is as follows:
¶17 The petition in error contains no assignment of error which may be considered on transcript by this court. The assignments of error are as follows:
¶18 As to the first assignment, the record fails to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kinnon v. Cote Piano Mfg. Co.
......A. C. Davis et al. v. R. S. DeGreer et al., 91 Okla. 111, 216 P. 156; Billington v. Grayson, 59 Okla. 182, 158 P. 433; McGuire v. Rash, 89 Okla. 132, 214 P. 698. Therefore, we cannot say from the transcript that the court committed error in sustaining the motion for a new ......
-
Hudson v. Gilbert
......Wright, 179 Okla. 73, 64 P. (2d) 855; Render v. Dodson, 179 Okla. 352, 66 P. (2d) 14; Wade v. Mitchell, 14 Okla. 168, 79 P. 95; McGuire" v. Rash, 89 Okla. 132, 214 P. 698; Thomas v. Potter, 164 Okla. 212, 23 P. (2d) 381. ¶3 The appeal is dismissed. \xC2"......
-
Thomas v. Potter
......Wade v. Mitchell, 14 Okla. 168, 79 P. 95; Manley v. Halsell, 43 Okla. 402, 143 P. 193; McGuire v. Rash, 89 Okla. 132, 214 P. 698; Ward v. Weathers, 140 Okla. 25, 282 P. 147. ¶4 In Wade v. Mitchell, supra, Chief Justice Burford, ......
-
Ward v. Weathers
......McGuire v. Rash, 89 Okla. 132, 214 P. 698, and cases therein cited. No attempt is made to incorporate in the transcript a bill of exceptions or to bring the ......