TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Avery v. Hays

AVERY Et Al. v. HAYS

Avery v. Hays, 1914 OK 378, 144 P. 624
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 25, 1914
Docket
No. 3733
Judges
Rittenhouse, Davis
Citations
144 P. 6241914 OK 37844 Okla. 711914 Okla. LEXIS 639
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Assignment of Error — Ruling on Motion for New Trial. Errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered by the Supreme Court, unless the ruling of the trial court on the motion for a new trial is assigned as error. 2. QUIETING TITLE — Parties—Petition—Sufficiency. Petition ex-• amined and held to state a cause of action, under section 6121, Comp. Laws, 1909 (Rev. Laws J910, section 4927). (Syllabus by Rittenhouse, C.)
Summary
Error from District Court, Mayes County; Action by Craig C. Hays, a minor, by Jerry V. Hays, his guardian, against P. Avery, Citizens Bank & Trust Co., of Pryor Creek, Okla., M. W. Krotzner, and Henry E. Hale. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring 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 — Rittenhouse

Opinion by RITTENHOUSE, C.

This court has repeatedly held that errors occurring during the trial cannot be considered unless a motion for a new trial has .been made by the complaining party, and acted upon by the trial court, and .its ruling assigned as error in the Supreme Court.

Kee v. Park et al., 32 Okla. 302 , 122 Pac. 712 ;

Stinchcomb v. Myers, 28 Okla. 597 , 115 Pac. 602 ;

St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Leake et al., 34 Okla. 77 , 123 Pac. 1125 . The plaintiffs in error, defendants below, have not assigned as error the ruling of the court upon the motion for a new trial, and therefore we cannot consider the errors alleged to have occurred during the trial.

The only question remaining for our consideration is, the sufficiency of the petition as against a demurrer on the ground *72 that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause for action. The petition alleges in substance that the plaintiff claims to be the legal and equitable owner of the lands in controversy by allotment as a member of .the Cherokee Tribe of Indians, and describes in said petition the land with convenient certainty as provided by section 5667, Comp. Laws 1909 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 4778), and alleges plaintiff’s possession thereof; that the defendants and each of them claim an estate in said lands adverse to the plaintiff, the nature of which is set out in the-petition in general terms, and asks that the defendants and each of them be required to set forth the nature of their respective claims to said premises; that the court decree plaintiff’s claim to and the title in said premises to be valid and perfect, and that the defendants and each of them have no interest, right, title, estate or lien upon said lands, and that said defendants be enjoined from claiming any interest therein, and for such other relief as plaintiff may be entitled to, and costs of suit. This petition fully complies with section 6121, Comp. Laws 1909 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 4927), which provides that an action may be brought-by any person in possession against any person claiming an estate or interest therein, for the purpose of determining such adverse estate or interest. This section has been construed in the case of Lawrence v. Estes et al., 29 Okla. 328 , 116 Pac. 781 , wherein it was held that a petition which substantially complies with section 6121, supra, was sufficient as against a general demurrer, and under authority of that case we hold the petition under consideration states a cause of action.

The cause should, therefore, 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 13 cases

View all citing references →
1914: 11916: 61917: 21918: 21920: 11921: 119142026peak 1916 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Millus v. Lowrey Bros.1917 OK 161, 164 P. 663
  2. Davis v. McGilbray196 P. 339 (Okla. 1921)
  3. Aaron v. American Nat. Bank159 P. 246 (Okla. 1916)
  4. Commercial National Bank v. Trumbly1916 OK 239, 155 P. 874
  5. Faunce Spinney v. Sam Daube Co.1918 OK 296, 173 P. 70
  6. Keener v. Buttler159 P. 468 (Okla. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Davis v. McGilbray196 P. 339 (Okla. 1921)
  2. Wells v. McArthur1920 OK 96, 188 P. 322
  3. Citizens' Bank & Trust Co. of Pryor v. Hale1918 OK 734, 177 P. 366
  4. Faunce Spinney v. Sam Daube Co.1918 OK 296, 173 P. 70
  5. Millus v. Lowrey Bros.1917 OK 161, 164 P. 663
  6. Bennett v. Moore1917 OK 70, 162 P. 707

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Stinchcomb v. Myers, 1911 OK 55, 115 P. 602 21
Kee v. Park, 1912 OK 259, 122 P. 712 10
Lawrence v. Estes, 1911 OK 272, 116 P. 781 5
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Leake, 1912 OK 278, 123 P. 1125 5

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