TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jones v. Lee

Jones v. Lee, 1914 OK 384, 142 P. 996
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. 4474
Judges
Kane
Citations
142 P. 9961914 OK 38443 Okla. 2571914 Okla. LEXIS 503
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Assignments of Error — Sufficiency. ■Where assignments of error are so indefinite and general as not to point out the errors complained of, and do not direct the court’s attention to any facts showing cause for reversal, the Supreme Court will not consider them. 2. SAME — Presentation for Review — Transcript. Assignments of error to the effect that the trial court erred in giving certain instructions, that the verdict is excessive, that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, etc., cannot be presented for review upon a transcript of the record. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from District Court, Beaver County; R. H. Eoofbourrow, Judge. Action between W. I. Jones and Jesse A. Lee. From the judgment, Jones 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 — Kane

KANE, C. J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal and proceeding in error herein upon the following grounds:

“(1) Because this is an attempted appeal by petition in error and certified transcript of record filed in the Supreme Court on October 22, 1912, and none of the assignments of error in the petition in error present any questions to this court for review, as fully appears from the assignments and the transcript of the record filed herein, which said assignments are as follows: ‘First. Said district court erred in rendering judgment in favor of defendant in error and against plaintiff in error. Second. Said district court erred in not rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff in error and against defendant in error for costs. Third. Said district court erred in giving to the jury instructions numbered 1 on page 22 of transcript and refusing to give instructions on pages 23 and 24 of transcript requested by plaintiff in error. Fourth. Said district court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial of said cause in said court. Fifth. Said judgment of the district court is contrary to law, excessive, and the result of prejudice and passion. Sixth. Because of divers other errors appearing in said record.”

The motion to dismiss must be sustained. The first, second, and sixth assignments of error are too general and indefinite to present any question for review to the Supreme Court, either upon a transcript of the record or a case-made, in that neither of them points out any specific error or directs the court’s attention to any fact showing cause for reversal.

Turner v. First Nat. Bank, *259 40 Okla. 498 , 139 Pac. 703 . The other assignments of error cannot be presented for review upon a transcript of the record.

Glaser v. Glaser et al., 13 Okla. 389 , 74 Pac. 944 ;

Boyd v. Bryan, 11 Okla. 56 , 65 Pac. 940 ;

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

The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 41916: 11917: 21920: 119152026peak 1915 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commerce Trust Co. v. School Dist. No. 371915 OK 91, 147 P. 303
  2. Wells v. McArthur1920 OK 96, 188 P. 322
  3. National Surety Co. v. First Bank of Texola1917 OK 603, 169 P. 1091
  4. Lynch v. Ponca City1916 OK 503, 157 P. 351
  5. Fields v. Fields1915 OK 572, 155 P. 245
  6. Lewis v. Leitchfield Clothing Co.1915 OK 385, 149 P. 1135

Most recent

  1. Wells v. McArthur1920 OK 96, 188 P. 322
  2. Aetna Building & Loan Ass'n v. Smith1917 OK 604, 169 P. 1091
  3. National Surety Co. v. First Bank of Texola1917 OK 603, 169 P. 1091
  4. Lynch v. Ponca City1916 OK 503, 157 P. 351
  5. Fields v. Fields1915 OK 572, 155 P. 245
  6. Lewis v. Leitchfield Clothing Co.1915 OK 385, 149 P. 1135

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
Glaser v. Glaser, 1903 OK 75, 74 P. 944 46
Boyd v. Bryan, 65 P. 940 (Okla. 1901) 34
Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 1914 OK 133, 139 P. 703 11
Ludwig v. Benedict, 1912 OK 380, 125 P. 739 6

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