Turner v. First Nat. Bank, Case Number: 2593

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtLOOFBOURROW, J.
Citation1914 OK 133,40 Okla. 498,139 P. 703
PartiesTURNER v. FIRST NAT. BANK.
Decision Date17 March 1914
Docket NumberCase Number: 2593

1914 OK 133
139 P. 703
40 Okla. 498

TURNER
v.
FIRST NAT.
BANK.

Case Number: 2593

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 17, 1914


Syllabus

¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR--Review--Assignment of Error--Motion for New Trial. Where the appellant fails to assign as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial in the petition in error, no question is properly presented to this court to review error alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below.

2. SAME--Necessity of Specific Assignment. Where an assignment of error is so general as not to point out the real error or errors complained of, this court will not consider them, nor will it examine the record with regard thereto.

3. BILLS AND NOTES--Action Against Endorser--Petition-- Sufficiency. Petition examined and held to state a cause of action.

Error from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank against C. W. Turner. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Charles Bagg, for plaintiff in error

Brainerd & Davis, for defendant in error

LOOFBOURROW, J.

¶1 The defendant in error, plaintiff below, commenced this action against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, in the superior court of Muskogee county, its petition alleging, in substance, that it is a corporation duly organized, etc., with place of business in the city of Muskogee. That on the 21st day of December, A. D. 1908, George I. Uhl, being indebted to Samuel N. McPherson in the sum of two hundred and thirty dollars ($ 230), made, executed and delivered to the said Samuel N. McPherson his certain promissory note in writing, bearing date and day and year aforesaid, signed by the said George I. Uhl, and therein and thereby four months after date thereof promised to pay to the order of the said Samuel N. McPherson two hundred and thirty dollars ($ 230) for value received, with interest after maturity at the rate of eight (8) per cent. per annum until paid; that after the execution and delivery of said note and before the maturity the said Samuel N. McPherson for a valuable consideration endorsed and transferred said promissory note to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is now the owner and holder thereof. That after the execution and delivery of said note and before the same was endorsed and transferred to the plaintiff, the defendant, C. W. Turner, by his certain endorsement, duly written and endorsed on said note, endorsed said note, and by virtue of said endorsement then and there became liable to pay to the payee of said note, the said Samuel N....

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Gourley v. Williams, Case Number: 4276
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 25 mei 1915
    ...proper, and this court may review the same upon a proper assignment contained in the petition in error." ¶4 In Turner v. First Natl. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703, it is held: "Where an assignment of error is so general as not to point out the real error or errors complained of, this court......
  • Akin v. Bonfils, Case Number: 6151
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 1 juni 1915
    ...it has been held by this court, will not be considered. Willet v. Johnson, 13 Okla. 563, 76 P. 174; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; Johnson v. Johnson, 43 Okla. 582, 143 P. 670. ¶7 Notwithstanding the size of the record, containing, as it does, almost 600 typewritten pa......
  • Nat'l Sur. Co. v. First Bank of Texola, Case Number: 8993
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 11 december 1917
    ...cannot be reviewed. O'Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141; Maddox v. Barrett, 44 Okla. 101, 143 P. 673; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; Nichols v. Dexter, 52 Okla. 152, 152 P. 817; McDonald v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 P. 920; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 ......
  • Nichols v. Dexter, Case Number: 5690
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 2 november 1915
    ...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. 497, 139 P. 254. ¶3 The only question properly presented for review is the sufficiency of the p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Gourley v. Williams, Case Number: 4276
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 25 mei 1915
    ...proper, and this court may review the same upon a proper assignment contained in the petition in error." ¶4 In Turner v. First Natl. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703, it is held: "Where an assignment of error is so general as not to point out the real error or errors complained of, this court......
  • Akin v. Bonfils, Case Number: 6151
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 1 juni 1915
    ...it has been held by this court, will not be considered. Willet v. Johnson, 13 Okla. 563, 76 P. 174; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; Johnson v. Johnson, 43 Okla. 582, 143 P. 670. ¶7 Notwithstanding the size of the record, containing, as it does, almost 600 typewritten pa......
  • Nat'l Sur. Co. v. First Bank of Texola, Case Number: 8993
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 11 december 1917
    ...cannot be reviewed. O'Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141; Maddox v. Barrett, 44 Okla. 101, 143 P. 673; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; Nichols v. Dexter, 52 Okla. 152, 152 P. 817; McDonald v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 P. 920; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 ......
  • Nichols v. Dexter, Case Number: 5690
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 2 november 1915
    ...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. 497, 139 P. 254. ¶3 The only question properly presented for review is the sufficiency of the p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT