TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McMechan v. Christy

T. F. McMechan v. T. P. Christy

McMechan v. Christy, 1895 OK 41, 41 P. 382
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 27, 1895
Judges
Bierer, Burford
Citations
41 P. 3821895 OK 413 Okla. 3011895 Okla. LEXIS 36
Headnotes
Record — Motion to Dismiss Appeal From, Probate to District Court, and Motion for New Trial No Part of, Without Case-Made or Bill of Exceptions. Under the code of 1893, a motion to dismiss an appeal from the probate court to the district court, and a motion for a new trial, and the evidence taken on the trial in the district court, and the exceptions made to the various rulings of the district court upon these matters, are not a part of the record without a case-made or bill of exceptions, and a transcript of the record of the district court presents no questions, in this court, for a review of the actions of the district court in its rulings upon such motions.
Summary
Error front the District Court of Kingfisher County.

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

Opinion of the Court — Bierer

The opinion of the court was delivered by Bierer, J.:

To the petition in error in this case is attached a transcript of the record of the court below, duly certified by the clerk of the district court. The errors assigned in the petition are to matters which occurred upon the trial and to the overruling of the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial, and to the overruling of the motion of plaintiff in error, made in the district court, to dismiss the appeal taken to that *302 court from the judgment of the probate court. This transcript purports to contain all of the original pleadings filed in the probate court, and which .were used upon the trial in the district court, the motion made by plaintiff in error in the district court to dismiss the appeal taken by defendant in error from the probate to the district court, the evidence offered in the case, with the rulings thereon, the verdict of the jury, the motion for a new trial, the judgment of the court overruling the same with the exceptions thei-eto, and a statement that ninety days’ time was given defendant below, plaintiff in error here, to prepare a bill of exceptions. There is, however, no certificate showing that the judge of the district court ever signed the record as a bill of exceptions, or settled it as a case-made. There is nothing attached to this record but the certificate of the clerk of the district court. This being the case, there is nothing presented to this court for review.

None of the errors assigned arise upon the transcript of the record. The particular matter urged in this court by plaintiff in error, and opposed bj1- defendant in error, is upon the action of the court below hr overruling plaintiff in error’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the probate court. This matter, however, cannot be reviewed upon the record before us, for such a motion, without a bill of exceptions or case-made, is not a part of the record which can be brought to this court by a transcript. This case was brought under the Code of 1890, but was tried after the taking effect of the Code of >1893, and by the latter Code its provisions were to apply after judgment (§ 4633 Code of 1893.) Sections 4306 and 4307, of the Code of 1893, require the clerk to make a complete record of every cause as soon as it is finally determined, and provides for the signing thereof by the judge of the court. Section 4308 of the same Code provides: “The record shall *303 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 3961, of the same Code, provides: “The only pleadings allowed are, first, the petition by the plaintiff; second, the answer or demurrer by the defendant; third, the demurrer or reply by the plaintiff; fourth, the demurrer by the defendant to the reply of the plaintiff.”

Prom these sections it will be perceived that a motion to dismiss an appeal, a motion for a new trial, the evidence used on the trial and the rulings of the court and exceptions thereto, are not a part of the record. Other portions of the Code provide for bringing into the record by case-made all such matters which are not otherwise a part of the record, and further provide for the bringing of the cause to this court, upon a transcript, or on a case-made. Upon a transcript of the record no questions can be considered except those which appeal from a consideration of the record as made in the court below, and the errors assigned not being presented upon the transcript, and no bill of exceptions or case-made having ever been filed in the court below, nothing is presented for our consideration in this case, and the judgment below is affirmed with costs against plaintiff in error.

Burford, J., not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 37 cases

View all citing references →
1896: 11897: 31898: 11902: 11903: 21904: 11905: 11908: 11909: 31910: 11911: 11912: 41913: 21914: 31915: 11916: 41918: 21924: 11926: 11928: 11936: 218962026peak 1912 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros.1911 OK 117, 114 P. 736
  2. Devault v. Merchants' Exch. Co.1908 OK 230, 98 P. 342
  3. Green v. Incorporated Town of Yeager1909 OK 22, 99 P. 906
  4. Stonebraker-Zea Cattle Co. v. Hilton1912 OK 478, 124 P. 1062
  5. Savoy Oil Co. v. Emery1928 OK 572, 277 P. 1029
  6. Davis v. Lammers1909 OK 48, 100 P. 514

Most recent

  1. Adams Royalty Co. v. Faulkner1936 OK 192, 55 P.2d 1033
  2. In re Clinton's Guardianship1936 OK 168, 54 P.2d 609
  3. Savoy Oil Co. v. Emery1928 OK 572, 277 P. 1029
  4. Hoffmeyer v. Partridge1926 OK 729, 249 P. 401
  5. Denson v. Frame1924 OK 326, 224 P. 311
  6. Upperman v. Coon1918 OK 334, 173 P. 522

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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