Oklahoma City v. Sheldon

• Decision Date: 21 November 1922
• Docket Number: 12417.
• Citation: 210 P. 921,87 Okla. 270,1922 OK 318
• Parties: OKLAHOMA CITY v. SHELDON.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

210 P. 921

87 Okla. 270, 1922 OK 318

OKLAHOMA CITY v. SHELDON.

No. 12417.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

November 21, 1922

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the brief filed by the plaintiff in error fails to assign error as required by rule No. 26 of this court (165 P. ix) but only in general terms complains of the action of the trial court in the trial of the case, the judgment will be affirmed.

Error is never presumed by this court, it must be affirmatively shown by the record, and, unless error is made to appear, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from District Court, Oklahoma County; Edward D. Oldfield Judge.

Action by Ella Sheldon against the City of Oklahoma City. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. H Ruth and O. L. Price, both of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Twyford & Smith, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

KENNAMER J.

This is an action instituted by Ella Sheldon against the city of Oklahoma to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her on March 15, 1920, by stepping into a hole in the pavement at the intersection of Third and Walnut streets in said city. From a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000 defendant brings this appeal.

Plaintiff in error has wholly failed to set forth any assignments or specifications of error in its brief.

Counsel for the plaintiff in error in their brief in a general way have made some complaint in regard to the action of the trial court in overruling a motion filed to make the petition of the defendant in error, plaintiff in the trial court, more definite and certain. But the brief filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error is not directed towards any specific assignment of error, nor is any part of the record abstracted as required by rule No. 26 of this court (165 P. ix). In this situation the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. Faunce & Spinney v. Sam Daube & Co. (Okl. Sup.) 173 P. 70; Clark v. Salluska (Okl. Sup.) 174 P. 505, 4 A. L. R. 746; Wells v. McArthur, 77 Okl. 279, 188 P 322; Carolina v. Montgomery (Okl. Sup.) 177 P. 612; Neil v. Union Nat. Bank (Okl. Sup.) 178 P. 659; Riter Conley Co. v. Wryn (Okl. Sup.) 174 P. 280, 11 A. L. R. 859; Cassidy v. Thompson (Okl. Sup.) 202 P. 291.

Error is never presumed by the Supreme Court, but it must always be affirmatively shown by the record, and where this is not done the judgment will be affirmed....