TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

University Realty Co. v. English

Univ. Realty Co. v. English, 1913 OK 674, 139 P. 516
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 18, 1913
Docket
No. 3197
Judges
Robertson
Citations
139 P. 5161913 OK 67441 Okla. 5931914 Okla. LEXIS 191
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Presentation for Review — Denial of New Trial. The action of the lower court in overruling the motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed by this court by means of a transcript of the record. 2. SAME — Motion for New Trial — Record. A motion for a new trial copied into a transcript constitutes no part of the record, and will not be considered by the Supreme Court on appeal. 3. SAME — “Record.” The record in a ease shall be made up from the petition, the process, return, the pleadings subsequent thereto, reports, verdicts, orders, judgments, and all material acts ánd proceedings of the court. (Syllabus by Robertson, C.)
Summary
Error from Superior Court, Garfield County; Dan Huett, Judge. Action by W. W. English against the University Realty Company to recover commission for sale of real estate. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant 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 — Robertson

Opinion by ROBERTSON, C.

This is an appeal by plaintiff in error by transcript of the record. Three assignments of error are raised in the petition in error, viz.:

“(1) The trial court erred in overruling the motion of defendant for a new trial. (2) The trial court erred in giving to the jury instruction No. 3 of the general charge. (3) The trial court erred in overruling the second, third, fourth, and fifth grounds of defendant’s motion to make the petition of plaintiff more definite and certain.”

The action of the lower court in overruling the motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed by this court by means of a transcript of the record.

Schoolmyer v. Van Buskirk, 35 Okla.

*594 439, 130 Pac. 138 ;

Richardson v. Beidleman, 33 Okla. 463 , 126 Pac. 818 ;

Laird v. Bannon, 31 Okla. 627 , 122 Pac. 180 . A motion for a new trial copied into a transcript constitutes no part of the record, and will not be considered by the Supreme Court on appeal.

Ludwig v. Benedict, 33 Okla. 300 , 125 Pac. 739 ;

Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros., 28 Okla. 525 , 122 Pac. 736 ;

Davis v. Lammers, 23 Okla. 338 , 100 Pac. 514 .

Whether or not there was error in the action of the trial court, as set up in assignment of error No. 2 of the petition in error, we cannot say, inasmuch as this would be an error of law occurring at the trial, and to be saved for review in this court would necessitate its presentation to the' lower court by 'motion for new trial; and, as has been seen, this appeal coming by transcript, without case-made or bill of exceptions, we are precluded from further examination into the alleged error.

The record in a case “shall be made up from the petition, the process, return, the pleadings subsequent thereto, reports, verdicts, orders, judgments and all material acts and proceedings of the court.” (Section 5146, Rev. Laws 1910.)

In Menten v. Shuttee, 11 Okla. 381 . 67 Pac. 478 , it was said:

“Motions presented in the trial court, the rulings thereon, and exceptions are not properly part of the record, and can only be preserved and presented for review on appeal by incorporating the same into a bill of exceptions or case-made. The record proper in a civil action consists of the petition, answer, reply, demurrers, process, rulings, orders, and judgment; and incorporating motions, affidavits, or other papers into a transcript will not constitute them a part of the record, unless made so by á bill of exceptions. Motions and proceedings which are not part of the record proper can only be presented for review by incorporating them into a case-made, or bjr preserving them by bill of exceptions, and embracing them in the transcript.”

In 2 Thompson on Trials, sec. 2712, it is said:

“The motion is necessary to enable the court to correct such errors, occurring at the trial, as do not appear on the face of the record proper, as where it is insisted that there is no evidence to support the verdict, or- that the verdict is against the law and evidence, or that the evidence does not authorize the judgment, or that there is an error in the verdict of the jury.

*595 or where it is alleged that the court erred in matter of law, either in admitting or rejecting evidence, or. in giving or refusing instructions.”

(Italics ours.)

To the same effect, see McMechan v. Christy, 3 Okla. 301 , 41 Pac. 382 ;

Black v. Kuhn, 6 Okla. 87 , 50 Pac. 80 ;

Kingman & Co. v. Pixley, 7 Okla. 351 , 54 Pac. 494 ;

McCarthy v. Bentley, 16 Okla. 19 , 83 Pac. 713 ;

Devault et al. v. Merchants’ Exch. Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342 ;

Green et al. v. Incorporated Town of Yeager, 23 Okla. 128 , 99 Pac. 906 ;

Lamb et al. v. Young et al., 24 Okla. 614 , 104 Pac. 335 .

What has been said relative to the foregoing assignments of error is likewise applicable to the third. This leaves for our examination the pleadings and the judgment of the court. The judgment appears to be regular in all things, and the allegations of the petition are sufficient to sustain the saíne; therefore 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.

1915: 11916: 21923: 119152026peak 1916 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Davis v. De Geer1923 OK 390, 216 P. 156
  2. Billington v. Grayson1916 OK 687, 158 P. 433
  3. Laborn v. Stephens1915 OK 106, 147 P. 152
  4. In re Combs' Estate1916 OK 1019, 161 P. 801

Most recent

  1. Davis v. De Geer1923 OK 390, 216 P. 156
  2. In re Combs' Estate1916 OK 1019, 161 P. 801
  3. Billington v. Grayson1916 OK 687, 158 P. 433
  4. Laborn v. Stephens1915 OK 106, 147 P. 152

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 14

DepthCaseCited by
Menten v. Shuttee, 1902 OK 2, 67 P. 478 46
Richardson Et Vir v. Beidleman, 126 P. 818 (Okla. 1912) 37
McMechan v. Christy, 1895 OK 41, 41 P. 382 37
Devault v. Merchants' Exch. Co., 1908 OK 230, 98 P. 342 36
Green v. Inc. Town of Yeager, 1909 OK 22, 99 P. 906 21
Black v. Kuhn, 1897 OK 51, 50 P. 80 18
Lamb v. Young, 1909 OK 225, 104 P. 335 18
Kingman & Co. v. Pixley, 1898 OK 65, 54 P. 494 14
McCarthy v. Bentley, 1905 OK 77, 83 P. 713 12
Davis v. Lammers, 1909 OK 48, 100 P. 514 11
Ludwig v. Benedict, 1912 OK 380, 125 P. 739 6
Laird v. Bannon, 1912 OK 193, 122 P. 180 5
Tribal Dev. Co. v. White Bros., 1911 OK 117, 114 P. 736 44
Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk, 1913 OK 119, 130 P. 138 4

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