TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Campbell v. Lane

Campbell, v. Lane

Campbell v. Lane, 1912 OK 333, 123 P. 1061
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 14, 1912
Docket
No. 1737
Judges
Hayes
Citations
123 P. 10611912 OK 33331 Okla. 7571912 Okla. LEXIS 137
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Motion for New Trial — Necessity. Errors occurring on the trial of a cause cannot be reviewed by this court, though the cause was tried to the court without a jury, unless the errors complained of have been presented to the trial court by a motion for a new trial. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from Nowata County Court; Bert Van Leuven, Judge. Action by Albert Campbell against George W. Lane. Judgment for defendant, 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 — Hayes

HAYES, J.

Plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, brought this action of unlawful detainer in a justice of the peace court in Nowata county for the recovery of the possession of certain real property which he alleged was unlawfully detained by defendant in error, defendant below. Judgment was rendered in said justice’s court against plaintiff in error, from which judgment he appealed to the county court of Nowata county, where, on the 19th day of May, a like judgment was rendered, assessing costs against plaintiff in error.

The cause was tried to the court, without the intervention of a jury, and is now before us for review on a transcript. The following assignments of error are urged for reversal of the cause: (1) Said court erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the evidence. (2) Said court erred in discharging the jury before they rendered a verdict. (3) Said court erred in assessing costs against plaintiff in error.

*758 It cannot be determined from the foregoing assignments of error, without reviewing the evidence taken at the trial of the cause, whether any prejudicial error was committed by the trial court. No motion for a new trial was filed by plaintiff in error. It 'is a well-settled rule of law that errors occurring at the trial of a cause cannot be reviewed in this court, although the cause was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury, unless the errors complained of have been called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial.

Nelson et al. v. Glenn et al., 28 Okla. 575 , 115 Pac. 471 ;

Ahern-Ott Mfg. Co. v. Condon et al., 23 Okla. 365 , 100 Pac. 556 .

The proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1913: 11914: 11915: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bilby v. Cathcart1915 OK 640, 151 P. 688
  2. Shives v. Frohberg1913 OK 617, 136 P. 399
  3. City of Muskogee v. Irvin1914 OK 641, 145 P. 415

Most recent

  1. Bilby v. Cathcart1915 OK 640, 151 P. 688
  2. City of Muskogee v. Irvin1914 OK 641, 145 P. 415
  3. Shives v. Frohberg1913 OK 617, 136 P. 399

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
Ahren-Ott Mfg. Co. v. Condon, 1909 OK 43, 100 P. 556 13
Nelson v. Glenn, 1911 OK 102, 115 P. 471 10

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