TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Duffield v. Ingraham

Duffield v. Ingraham, 1912 OK 704, 128 P. 111
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 16, 1912
Docket
No. 2080
Judges
Dunn, Yes, Kane, Turner, Williams
Citations
128 P. 1111912 OK 70435 Okla. 111912 Okla. LEXIS 502
Disposition
Reversed and remanded.
Syllabus
NEW TRIAL — Grounds—Death of Judge. Where, prior to the passage of the act of March 9, 1910 (Sess. Laws 1910, p. 59), a trial judge died within the time allowed to sign and settle a ease-made, his successor was not authorized to perform such duty; and the aggrieved party, being by reason of such unavoidable casualty or misfortune prevented from prosecuting his appeal to this court, will be given a new trial. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from Pawnee County Court; H. T. Conley, Judge. Action between N. R. Duffield and M. F. Ingraham. From the judgment, Duffield 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 — Dunn

DUNN, J.

This case presents error from the county court of Pawnee county. Subsequent to the denial of the motion for new trial, November 3, 1909, and during the time for service of the case-made, Judge PI. T. Conley, the trial judge, died. Thereafter the case-made was settled by County Judge N. E. Mc-Neill' and filed in this court. After the rendition of the case of J.

W. Ripey & Son v. Art Wall Paper Mill Co., 27 Okla. 600 , 112 Pac. 1119 , decided on the 16th day of 'November, 19Í0, and invoking the rule therein laid down, counsel for plaintiff in error presented evidence showing the death of the trial judge on February 2-6, 1910. Under the authority of the above case, there *12 fore, the cause will be remanded to the trial court, with instructions to set aside the judgment heretofore rendered.and grant plaintiff in error a new trial.

PIA YES and KANE, JJ., concur; TURNER, C. J., and WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 11917: 21934: 119122026peak 1917 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moore v. State1934 OK CR 152, 61 P.2d 1134
  2. In re Will1917 OK 298, 166 P. 131
  3. Hocker v. Carroll1912 OK 802, 129 P. 56
  4. Maxey v. Logan166 P. 131 (Okla. 1917)

Most recent

  1. Moore v. State1934 OK CR 152, 61 P.2d 1134
  2. In re Will1917 OK 298, 166 P. 131
  3. Maxey v. Logan166 P. 131 (Okla. 1917)
  4. Hocker v. Carroll1912 OK 802, 129 P. 56

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
J. W. Ripey Son v. the Art Wall Paper Mill, 1910 OK 338, 112 P. 1119 25

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