From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laird v. Bannon

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Mar 12, 1912
122 P. 180 (Okla. 1912)

Opinion

No. 2483

Opinion Filed March 12, 1912.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Record — Review of Motions. Motions presented in the trial court, including a motion for a new trial and the ruling thereon and exceptions taken, are not a part of the record proper, and can be preserved and presented for review on appeal only by incorporating the same into a bill of exceptions or case-made.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Oklahoma County; A. N. Munden, Judge.

Action between Samuel B. Laird and L. Bannon. From the judgment, Laird brings error. Dismissed.

Jas. R. Lewis, for plaintiff in error.

Thorp Thorp, for defendant in error.


This case presents error from the superior court of Oklahoma county. The proceeding is not instituted by either case-made or bill of exceptions, but is here upon a transcript of the record. The only assignment of error contained in the petition in error is that the court erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial. A motion to dismiss has been filed by counsel for defendant in error for the reason that the record before us presents no error subject to review. This motion must be sustained. That motions are no part of the record proper and are not brought to this court on a transcript thereof, see McMechan v. Christy, 3 Okla. 301, 41 P. 382, Tribal Development Co. et al. v. White Bros. et al., 28 Okla. 525, 114 P. 736, and cases therein cited.

The cause is, accordingly, dismissed.

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


Summaries of

Laird v. Bannon

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Mar 12, 1912
122 P. 180 (Okla. 1912)
Case details for

Laird v. Bannon

Case Details

Full title:LAIRD v. BANNON

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Mar 12, 1912

Citations

122 P. 180 (Okla. 1912)
122 P. 180

Citing Cases

Whitehead v. R. E. Holmes' Sons

The point thus made by plaintiff must be sustained, as it is settled law in this state that a motion to quash…

University Realty Co. v. English

The action of the lower court in overruling the motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed by this court by…