TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Welborn

FARMERS’ & MERCHANTS’ BANK v. WELBORN Et Al.

Farmers' & Merchants' Bank v. Welborn, 1912 OK 128, 121 P. 620
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 6, 1912
Docket
No. 1588
Judges
Ames
Citations
121 P. 6201912 OK 12832 Okla. 11912 Okla. LEXIS 206
Disposition
Affirmed.
Cited by 5
Syllabus
NEW TRIAL — Grounds—Loss of Stenographer’s Notes. The fact that the stenographer, who took the testimony at a trial, loses his notebook and is unable to make a transcript thereof for the losing party, is not sufficient ground for a new trial. (Syllabus by Ames, 0.)
Summary
Error from District Court, Blaine County; James R. Tolbert, Judge. Action by the Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank against W. S. Welborn and others to secure a new trial in an action wherein W. S. Welborn, one of the defendants, had recovered judgment against the plaintiff. Judgment for the defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Ames

Opinion by AMES, C.

The only question involved in this case is whether the loss by the stenographer of his notebook, and his consequent inability to prepare a transcript of the evidence, entitles the losing party to a new trial. The question has been settled in this state by the cases of Butts v. Anderson, 19 Okla. 369 , 91 Pac. 906 , and Whitely v. St. Louis, E. R. &. W. Ry. Co., 29 Okla. 63, 116 Pac. 165 , in which it is held that such a state of facts does not entitle the losing party to a new trial.

On the authority of those cases, we think the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1914: 11916: 11921: 11925: 11934: 119142026peak 1914 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dubs ex rel. Dubs v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.181 N.W. 606 (N.D. 1921)
  2. Gast v. Barnes1914 OK 507, 143 P. 856
  3. Moore v. State1934 OK CR 152, 61 P.2d 1134
  4. Schuman Bros. v. First Nat. Bank1925 OK 452, 240 P. 647
  5. Bucy v. Ardmore Brick & Tile Co.1916 OK 846, 160 P. 1126

Most recent

  1. Moore v. State1934 OK CR 152, 61 P.2d 1134
  2. Schuman Bros. v. First Nat. Bank1925 OK 452, 240 P. 647
  3. Dubs ex rel. Dubs v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.181 N.W. 606 (N.D. 1921)
  4. Bucy v. Ardmore Brick & Tile Co.1916 OK 846, 160 P. 1126
  5. Gast v. Barnes1914 OK 507, 143 P. 856

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Butts v. Anderson, 1907 OK 101, 91 P. 906 21
Whitely v. St. Louis, 1911 OK 118, 116 P. 165 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list