Sanders v. Provine
| Decision Date | 16 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 22471 |
| Citation | 1934 OK 551,169 Okla. 203,36 P.2d 855 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | SANDERS v. PROVINE. |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Time for Making, Serving, and Signing Case-Made not Extended by Unnecessary Motion for New Trial Where Judgment Rendered Upon Pleadings and Opening Statements.
Where a judgment is rendered by a trial court upon the pleadings and opening statements without an issue of fact, a motion for new trial is neither necessary nor proper and does not extend the time for notice of appeal or making, serving, and settling a case-made. And there is nothing for review in this court in an appeal from such a judgment upon a case-made not made, served, and signed within the time afforded by statute or within an extension of time granted by the trial court within such statutory time. Appeal dismissed.
2. Dismissal--After Final Judgment Trial Court not Authorized to Dismiss Cause Without Prejudice Upon Motion of Plaintiff.
Where a final judgment is rendered against a plaintiff and in favor of a defendant, the trial court is without jurisdiction to dismiss the cause, without prejudice to future action, upon the motion of plaintiff made without the judgment being first vacated by proper proceedings.
Appeal from District Court, Ottawa County; Dennis H. Wilson, Judge.
Action by Lester V. Sanders against George Provine. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.
J. J. Smith and Haywood Scott, for plaintiff in error.
Frank Nesbitt, for defendant in error.
¶1 The plaintiff brought his action for damages against the defendant, alleging in his petition negligence on the part of the defendant in an automobile collision near Miami, Okla., wherein the plaintiff sustained personal injuries and property damage. The defendant answered by general denial and plea of contributory negligence, and counterclaimed for property damage received in the automobile collision in question. Thereafter the Interstate Grocery Company, a corporation, and Standard Accident Insurance Company, a corporation, filed a petition in intervention, alleging that the plaintiff at the time of the accident was employed by the grocery company, and that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment within the terms of the Work-men's Compensation Law of Missouri, said grocery company doing business in Missouri, and the plaintiff working out of his employment in Missouri; and that plaintiff had demanded and accepted compensation and reimbursement for medical expenses under the Workmen's Compensation Law of the state of Missouri; and that under the laws of Missouri the intervener, grocery company, and its intervening insurance company were subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff in any recovery had by him to the extent of the sum paid to him; and prayed that in the event of recovery by plaintiff they receive out of the proceeds of any such judgment said sums so paid by them.
¶2 The plaintiff answered this Intervening petition by a general denial. Thereafter the defendant, with leave of court, amended his answer, setting up the Workmen's Compensation Law of Missouri and the demand and receipt of money as compensation by the plaintiff from his employer under such law' and alleged that the acceptance of compensation under the laws of Missouri amounted to an election to take as against his employer, resulting in his action against the third person defendant being waived and barred. To this amended answer the plaintiff replied by general denial.
¶3 The cause came on for trial on March 3, 1931. the plaintiff and the defendant appearing. After a jury was selected, opening statements were made: and thereupon the plaintiff was called to the witness stand on his own behalf. The defendant then objected to the taking of any testimony for the reason that the pleadings and the opening statements in the case, taken together, failed to show a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff, and showed that the plaintiff had elected to proceed against the insurance carrier of his employer, and that he was estopped from proceeding against the defendant. The court heard argument in the absence of the jury, and during such argument the attorneys for the plaintiff dictated into the record an admission that plaintiff "received and accepted compensation on account of injuries herein sued upon under the laws of the state of Missouri, and let us further admit that in this case the employer has intervened and asked that he be subrogated to the amount of money he has paid out."
¶4 Thereupon the trial court indicated that it appeared that the objection should be sustained. Thereupon the attorneys for the plaintiff asked leave to amend their petition, but the court denied that right'. The plaintiff did not reserve an exception.
¶5 Thereupon the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury "to return a verdict on the pleadings, and upon statements of counsel in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff and on the admission of counsel into the record."
¶6 The court sustained that motion, the plaintiff reserving no exception; and upon the instruction of the court the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, which verdict was received, filed and made of record, the plaintiff reserving no exceptions.
¶7 On March 6, 1931, the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial complaining (1) of the action of the court in sustaining defendant's motion against the introduction of evidence; (2) of the error of the court in holding that the law presented by the defendant was applicable to the case; (3) of the error by the court in holding that the law submitted by the plaintiff was not applicable to the case and preventing the plaintiff from proceeding with the trial; (4) of the error of the court in sustaining defendant's motion for an instructed verdict; and (5) error of the court in giving an instructed verdict to the jury.
¶8 Thereafter, on March 19, 1931, the plaintiff asked leave of court to be permitted to amend his motion for new trial to set up as a sixth ground therefor alleged error of the trial court in refusing to permit the plaintiff to amend his pleadings.
¶9 Upon a hearing of the motion to amend the motion for new trial, had on March 30, 1931, the trial court refused to permit the motion for new trial to be amended, and plaintiff reserved an exception. Thereupon, on March 30, 1931, the court overruled the motion for new...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Times Publ'g Co.
...92 Okla. 22, 217 P. 867; Durant v. Nesbitt, 59 Okla. 11, 157 P. 353; Barnett v. Tabor, 154 Okla. 20, 6 P.2d 787; Sanders v. Provine, 169 Okla. 203, 36 P.2d 855. Therefore the motion for new trial served no purpose to extend the time in which a case-made could be prepared. Sanders v. Provine......
-
Austin v. King
...below by operation of the cited statute. Peoples Electric Co-Operative v. Broughton, 191 Okl. 229, 127 P.2d 850, 853; Sanders v. Provine, 169 Okl. 203, 36 P.2d 855, 857. The trial court so determined in its judgment nunc pro Affirmed. ...
-
Jenkins v. Times Pub. Co.
...Shintaffer, 92 Okl. 22, 217 P. 867; Durant v. Nesbit, 59 Okl. 11, 157 P. 353; Barnett v. Tabor, 154 Okl. 20, 6 P.2d 787; Sanders v. Provine, 169 Okl. 203, 36 P.2d 855. Therefore the motion for new trial served no purpose extend the time in which a case-made could be prepared. Sanders v. Pro......
- Glass v. Tulsa Tribune Co.