Meyer v. James, Case Number: 861
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | HAYES, J. |
| Citation | 1911 OK 174,29 Okla. 7,115 P. 1016 |
| Parties | MEYER v. JAMES. |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 861 |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1911 |
1911 OK 174
115 P. 1016
29 Okla. 7
MEYER
v.
JAMES.
Case Number: 861
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: May 9, 1911
¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Assignment of Error--Necessity--Motion for New Trial. Where appellant fails to assign in his petition in error, as error, the overruling of a motion for a new trial, no question that seeks to have reviewed errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court, and such cannot be reviewed.
J. L. Byrne and C. C. Don Carlos, for plaintiff in error.
E. B. Hughes, for defendant in error.
HAYES, J.
¶1 This action was originally begun in a justice court of Creek county by defendant in error filing therein his bill of particulars, in which he alleged that he had sold and delivered to defendant therein a bill of goods amounting to $ 128.50, and that plaintiff in error had failed and refused to pay for same. Plaintiff in error filed his answer, denying generally and specifically plaintiff's allegations in his bill of particulars. The trial in the justice court resulted in a judgment for defendant in error, from which appeal was taken to the county court, in which court trial also resulted in judgment in favor of defendant in error. To reverse the judgment of the county court, plaintiff in error complains in his brief in this proceeding only of errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial court below.
¶2 There was a motion for a new trial by plaintiff in error, which was overruled by the trial court; but the action of the trial court in overruling a motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error in plaintiff in error's petition in error in this court, and therefore none of the matters urged in his brief can be considered. Where appellant fails to assign as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial in his petition in error, no question which seeks to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. First Nat. Bank, Case Number: 2593
...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; Burroughs v. Funk, 29 Okla. 677, 119 P. 9......
-
Nichols v. Dexter, Case Number: 5690
...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 P. 703; Adams v. Norton et al., 41 Okla......
-
O'Neil v. James, Case Number: 5172
...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. 703, 119 P. 246; Butler v. Oklahoma Stat......
-
Jennings Co. v. Dyer, Case Number: 2718
...which seeks to review such errors is properly presented for review to this court. Cox v. Lavine, 29 Okla. 312, 116 P. 920; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 P. 1016; George v. Moore, 32 Okla. 842, 124 P. 36; Hunter v. Hines et al., 33 Okla. 590, 127 P. 386; Butler v. Oklahoma State Bank, 36 O......
-
Turner v. First Nat. Bank, Case Number: 2593
...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; Burroughs v. Funk, 29 Okla. 677, 119 P. 9......
-
Nichols v. Dexter, Case Number: 5690
...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 P. 703; Adams v. Norton et al., 41 Okla......
-
O'Neil v. James, Case Number: 5172
...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. 703, 119 P. 246; Butler v. Oklahoma Stat......
-
Jennings Co. v. Dyer, Case Number: 2718
...which seeks to review such errors is properly presented for review to this court. Cox v. Lavine, 29 Okla. 312, 116 P. 920; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 P. 1016; George v. Moore, 32 Okla. 842, 124 P. 36; Hunter v. Hines et al., 33 Okla. 590, 127 P. 386; Butler v. Oklahoma State Bank, 36 O......