Wagner v. Thorpe
| Decision Date | 15 September 1931 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 21636 |
| Citation | 1931 OK 536,2 P.2d 1027,151 Okla. 142 |
| Parties | WAGNER et al. v. THORPE et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Pleading--Waiver of Error in Sustaining Demurrer by Taking Leave to Amend.
When a demurrer is sustained to a pleading, and the pleader thereupon takes leave to amend, he thereby waives the error, if any has been committed, in sustaining such demurrer. In order to take advantage of a ruling on a demurrer when such demurrer is sustained, the party must stand upon his pleading held to be defective, and not amend.
2. Same--Striking Amendment Held not Error When Amended Petition States no Cause of Action.
Where a general demurrer to a petition is sustained on the ground that the petition does not state a cause of action, and the pleader amends by inserting therein allegations which, upon their face, do not state a cause of action and which, in connection with the allegations theretofore made, do not state a cause of action, there is no error on the part of the trial court in striking the amendment so made.
3. Same--Dismissal of Action Where Plaintiff Stands on Defective Petition.
Where a trial court sustains a demurrer to a petition, and the pleader amends by including matters which, standing alone or in connection with the allegations of the original petition, do not state a cause of action, and the trial court upon a motion strikes the amendment from the petition, and the pleader declines to plead further and stands on the pleading as filed, there is no error in rendering a judgment dismissing the action.
Appeal from District Court, Texas County; F. Hiner Dale, Judge.
Action by J. M. Wagner and others against Joe H. Thorpe et al., officers of Consolidated School District No. 15, Texas County. Motion to strike amendment to petition sustained, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Clifford W. Ferguson, for plaintiffs, in error.
Embry, Johnson, Crowe & Tolbert and Hughes & Dickson, for defendants in error.
¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Texas county in favor of the defendants in error, defendants in the trial court, against the plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs in the trial court. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
¶2 The record shows that a general demurrer of the defendants to the petition of the plaintiffs was sustained. The plaintiffs amended their petition by adding thereto the following:
"That subsequent to the filing of this petition and prior to date of this hearing on demurrer, the Attorney General of state of Oklahoma, acting as ex-officio Bond Commissioner of state of Oklahoma, has approved the bonds which are a part of the subject-matter and which are referred to and set forth in the allegations of the original petition."
Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion to strike the amendment made by the plaintiffs. Upon a hearing the trial court sustained that motion and struck that portion of the amended petition which had been added thereto by way of amendment. From that order the plaintiffs excepted and declined to plead further. Thereupon the trial court dismissed their action at their cost. From that judgment an appeal was taken to this court.
¶3 Herein the plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition of the plaintiffs, and that the trial court erred in striking the amendment and in dismissing the petition of the plaintiffs.
¶4 When a demurrer is sustained to a pleading and the pleader thereupon takes leave to amend, he thereby waives the error, if any has been committed, in sustaining such demurrer. Berry v. Barton, 12 Okla. 221, 71 P. 1074; Carle v. Oklahoma Woolen Mills, 16 Okla. 515, 86 P. 66; Board of County Commissioners v. Beauchamp, 18 Okla. 1, 88 P. 1124; Cates v. Miles, 67 Okla. 192, 169 P. 888; Bank of Buchannan County v. Priestly, 87 Okla. 62, 209 P. 412; Dixon v. National Bank of Commerce, 98 Okla. 181, 224 P. 307; Ottawa County Nat. Bank v. Bouldin, 117 Okla. 104, 246 P. 434; Roach v. Choctaw Lbr. Co., 131 Okla. 72, 267 P. 256; Battle v. Epperson, 135 Okla. 27, 274 P. 17.
¶5 With reference to the amendment made and stricken, the plaintiffs in their brief say:
"The plaintiffs in error do not seriously contend that this matter was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moshannon Nat. Bank v. Iron Mountain Ranch Co.
...523; Coplan v. Eastwood, 33 S.D. 229, 145 N.W. 431; Berry v. Barton, 12 Okla. 221, 71 P. 1074, 1075, 66 L. R. A. 513; Wagner v. Thorpe, 151 Okla. 142, 2 P.2d 1027, cases there cited; Hurd v. Smith, 5 Colo. 233; Sholes v. State Bank, 82 Colo. 432, 261 P. 456; Bankers' etc. Assn. v. Finn, 64 ......
-
Forster-Davis Motor Corp. v. Abrams
... ... the petition and appeal. Berry v. Barton, 12 Okl ... 221, 71 P. 1074, 66 L.R.A. 513; Wagner v. Thorpe, ... 151 Okl. 142, 2 P.2d 1027 ... The ... sections of the statute invoked and discussed on the argument ... of the ... ...
-
Forster-Davis Motor Corp. v. Abrams
...only way to have the ruling reviewed was to stand upon the petition and appeal. Berry v. Barton, 12 Okla. 221, 71 P. 1074; Wagner v. Thorpe, 151 Okla, 142, 2 P.2d 1027. ¶8 The sections of the statute invoked and discussed on the argument of the demurrer are sections 5126 and 1527, C. O. S. ......
-
Beaver, Meade & Englewood R. Co. v. Baker
...assigned as error. Berry v. Barton, 12 Okla. 221, 71 P. 1074; State ex rel. Freeling v. Martin, 62 Okla. 295, 162 P. 1088; Wagner v. Thorpe, 151 Okla. 142, 2 P.2d 1027. 3. Appeal and Error--Review--Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Verdict. Where a law action is tried to a jury and submitt......