Town of Okemah v. Allen
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by WATTS, C.
Robert Allen sued the town of Okemah, in the district court of Okfuskee county, to recover alleged damages caused by the eonstructioil of a certain water tower, which was situated in the public street adjacent to the property of the plaintiff. December 13, 1912, the issues of fact were submitted to a jury, which resulted favorably to the plaintiff, and defendant *758 appeals, alleging as error: (1) In admitting certain evidence of the plaintiff; (2) in giving certain instructions to the jury; (3) the verdict of the jury was.iex-cessive, and was unwarranted under competent ¿nd admissible testimony submitted by the plaintiff to sustaiiii his cause of action; (4) in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
We get from the record that the trial judge on December 13, 1912, signed a journal entry, awarding judgment to the plaintiff, and on January 8, 1913, signed a journal entry denying the motion for a new trial, and gave time to make and serve case-made, etc., and within the time, and on February 15, 1915, signed a journal entry, extending the time to make and serve the case, but none of these journal entries mentioned, especially the latter, appear to ha,ve been filed with the clerk of the court, or ever became a part of the record in this case. Therefore we are powerless to give the alleged errors further consideration.
In Walker v. Board of County Commissioners of Grant County, 44 Okla. 350 , 144 Pac. 793 , Harrison, C., said:
“These questions, however, are not properly presented here, for the reason that it appears from the case-made that neither the original petition, answer, agreed statement of facts, nor journal entry of judgment, were ever filed with the clerk of the district court. That is, the purported petition, answer, agreed statement of facts, and journal entry presented here bear no copy of filing marks, nor other evidence that their originals were ever filed with the district clerk, * * * and therefore, under Mobley v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 44 Okla. 788 , 145 Pac. 321 , present nothing to this court for decision.”
*759 See, also, Morris v. Caulk, 44 Okla. 342 , 144 Pac. 623 .
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
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 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.