Vacuum Oil Co. v. Blanchard Motor Co., Case Number: 17130

• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 114 Okla. 130,1926 OK 224,244 P. 777
• Decision Date: 09 March 1926
• Docket Number: Case Number: 17130
• Parties: VACUUM OIL CO., Inc., v. BLANCHARD MOTOR CO. et al.

1926 OK 224
244 P. 777
114 Okla. 130

VACUUM OIL CO., Inc.,
v.
BLANCHARD MOTOR CO. et al.

Case Number: 17130

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 9, 1926

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Defective Case-Made -- Dismissal.

Where a case-made contains only recitals as to the record of the trial court, it is a nullity and brings nothing before this court for review.

Appeal from District Court, McClain County; W. L. Eagleton, Judge.
Action between the Vacuum Oil Company, Inc., and the Blanchard Motor Company and others. From the judgment, the former appeals. Appeal dismissed.

O. T. Shinn, for plaintiff in error.

Melton & Melton, for defendants in error H. E. Green and First State Bank of Blanchard.

J. B. Dudley, for defendant in error F. M. Hopkins.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The record in this case contains what purports to be a copy of the petition and answer filed by defendant, E. E. Hopkins, but these purported copies do not show that they were ever filed in the office of the clerk or ever became part of the record in the case. The record recites that application was made for judgment against E. E. Hopkins for want of a sufficient answer, which the court overruled, but there is no application in the record and no order of the court overruling same. The record recites that the other defendants demurred to the petition, which the court overruled, but there is no demurrer in the record and no order of the court overruling it. The record recites that plaintiff made application for the appointment of a receiver, which was denied, and that plaintiff gave notice of appeal, but there is no application in the record, no order of the court denying it, and no notice of appeal. This constitutes the record, and defendants in error move to dismiss the appeal because of its insufficiency.

¶2 Plaintiff in error has filed a response to the motion, and insists that under section 784, C. O. S. 1921, the record is sufficient as a case-made, which section is as follows:

"A party desiring to have any judgment or order of the county, superior, or district court, or a judge thereof, reversed by the Supreme Court, may make a case, containing a statement of so much of the proceedings and evidence, or other matters in the action, as may be necessary to present the errors complained of to the Supreme Court."

¶3 This section of the statute merely contemplates an abbreviation of the record as made by the trial court, and a recital that certain proceedings were had can never be...