Scott v. Woods Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 30 May 1922 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 10727 |
Citation | 207 P. 449,1922 OK 195,86 Okla. 185 |
Parties | SCOTT et al. v. WOODS LUMBER CO. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Pleading--Sufficiency of Petition -- Surplusage. Where the plaintiff's petition, stripped of surplus and unnecessary verbiage, states a cause of action against the defendant, a general demurrer thereto should be overruled.
2. Pleading -- Judgment on Pleadings--Issues on Motion.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings presents two questions to the court in the following order: (1) Is there any issue of material fact? And if no issue of material fact is presented by the pleadings, (2) which party is entitled to the judgment?
3. Appeal and Error -- Procedure -- Case-Made--Transcript of Record.
There are two ways of bringing a record to this court in support of a petition in error: (a) The party appealing may attach to his petition in error a case-made containing all the record, including evidence and statements of the exceptions without the necessity of having the exceptions reduced to writing, allowed, and signed by the trial judge; (b) or the appealing party may attach to his petition in error a transcript of the record, and if he desires to bring to the court any part of the record other than the pleadings, the process, the return, reports, verdict, orders and judgments, as provided for in section 5146, Rev. Laws 1910, he must incorporate same into the record by a bill of exceptions.
4. Pleading--Judgment on Pleadings--Foreclosure of Materialman's Lien.
Record examined, and held, that the trial court did not err in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the pleadings.
Error from District Court, Craig County; A. C. Brewster, Judge.
Action by the Woods Lumber Company against John W. Scott and others to foreclose materialman's lien. Judgment for plaintiff, and certain of defendants bring error. Affirmed.
F. W. Church and Andrew J. Jones, for plaintiffs in error.
C. Caldwell, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from the district court of Craig county. On the 18th day of April, 1918, Woods Lumber Company, a partnership composed of O. E. Woods and W. J. Woods, commenced an action in the district court of Craig county, Okla., against Mary Smith, John W. Scott, and the First National Bank of Miami as defendants, praying for judgment against the defendant Mary Smith for the sum of $ 418.35 and to foreclose a materialman's lien on the buildings and lands described in the said petition for said amount, and that said lien be adjudged superior to the rights of the defendant Scott and the First National Bank; that the lien be foreclosed and the property ordered sold to pay said amount, costs and attorneys' fees. No personal judgment was sought against Scott or the bank. Service was had on Mary Smith by publication, and she made default. Personal service was had on the other two defendants, and they answered. The plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as against the two answering defendants, and the trial court sustained the same and rendered judgment accordingly, to reverse which this proceeding in error was commenced by the defendant Scott and the bank by petition in error with a transcript of the record attached thereto. The parties will be referred to hereinafter as plaintiff and defendants, respectively, as they appeared in the trial court. The defendants' petition in error contains six specifications of error, which are as follows:
¶2 The third specification of error, supra, was expressly waived by counsel in their brief.
¶3 Counsel for defendants have argued together specifications of error numbered 4 and 5 in their brief. These assignments cannot be considered by this court, because the motions therein referred to are not part of the record. As hereinbefore stated, this appeal is prosecuted by a transcript of the record, which does not contain any case-made or bill of exceptions, in which the motions referred to are incorporated as required by law. In the case of Stonebraker-Zea Cattle Co. v. Hilton, 34 Okla. 225, 124 P. 1062, this court stated in paragraph one of the syllabus as follows:
¶4 See, also, the following cases for the same ruling: Brown-Beane Co. et al. v. Rucker, 36 Okla. 698, 129 P. 1; Craig v. Greer, 33 Okla. 302, 124 P. 1096; Green et al. v. Incorporated Town of Yeager, 23 Okla. 128, 99 P. 906; Land et al. v. Young et al., 24 Okla. 614, 104 P. 335; Nelson et al. v. Glenn et al., 28 Okla. 575, 115 P. 471; Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros. et al., 28 Okla. 525, 114 P. 736; Richardson v. Beidleman, 33 Okla. 463, 126 P. 816; Vann et al. v. Union Central Life Ins. Co. et al., 79 Okla. 17, 191 P. 175.
¶5 In the latter case, supra, in quite an elaborate opinion by Ramsey, J., speaking for the court, it was stated in syllabus paragraphs 8 and 9 as follows:
¶6 The defendants' second specification of error, that the court erred in overruling the general demurrer of defendants to plaintiff's petition is without merit. The petition in substance alleges that Pearl H. Smith and Mary Smith were husband and wife and that Pearl Smith is now dead. That in October, 1910, said Pearl Smith became the owner of the property (describing it) by conveyance to him by a warranty deed; that they lived on the said farm together, and in December, 1911, Pearl Smith conveyed the land to his wife, Mary Smith, and they continued to live on it; that said Pearl Smith and Mary Smith purchased the materials from plaintiff to build buildings on the said land; that plaintiff did not know of the transfer of the title to Mary Smith and charged the materials to Pearl Smith; that plaintiff did not know whether the conveyance was bona fide or not, but if so, Pearl Smith was acting as the agent of his said wife in purchasing the materials and with her knowledge and consent. That the last of the materials were furnished on the 17th day of August, 1917, amounted to $ 418.35, and that on the 8th of September, 1917, plaintiff filed a lien statement in the office of the court clerk of Craig county, Okla., the county in which the land lies, against the buildings and the farm. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Exch. Trust Co. v. Godfrey
...the holding of this court in the case of Adams Oil & Gas Co. v. Hudson, 55 Okla. 386, 155 P. 220" ¶19 See, also, Scott et al. v. Woods Lumber Co., 86 Okla. 185, 207 P. 449, holding:"They did not plead that they were bona fide purchasers, neither was their answer verified. To have the benefi......
-
Smith v. First Nat. Bank of Eldorado
... ... of material fact is presented by the pleadings (2), which party is entitled to the judgment?" Scott et al. v. Woods Lumber Co., 86 Okla. 185, 207 P. 449; Taylor et al. v. Campbell, 139 Okla. 110, 281 ... ...
-
Moseley v. Smith
...unnecessary verbiage, states a cause of action against the defendant, a general demurrer thereto should be overruled." Scott v. Woods Lbr. Co., 86 Okla. 185, 207 P. 449; Gilbert v. Welchel, 162 Okla. 133, 19 P.2d 609. ¶13 In Smith v. Gardner, 37 Okla. 183, 131 P. 538 we laid down the rule w......
-
Choctaw Lbr. Co. v. Mckeever
...94; Clark v. Lambert, 55 W. Va. 512, 47 S.E. 312. " ¶9 And the rule announced in this case has been followed in Scott et al. v. Woods Lumber Co., 86 Okla. 185, 207 P. 449, and Gay et al. v. Williams et al., 102 Okla. 37, 226 P. 88. It is contended by the defendants that there was no evidenc......