From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elliott v. Jenkins

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Dec 2, 1924
231 P. 234 (Okla. 1924)

Opinion

No. 15792

Opinion Filed December 2, 1924.

Error from District Court, Creek County; Hal Johnson, Assigned Judge.

Action by Wm. M. Jenkins against Maude C. Elliott. Judgment for defendant, motion for new trial sustained, and defendant brings error. Dismissed.

Thompson Smith, for plaintiff in error.

Walker Lee and Albertson Bleakmore, for defendant in error.


This appeal is from an order of the trial court setting aside the verdict of the jury in favor of defendant, plaintiff in error here, in an election contest.

The motion for new trial set out a number of grounds, but the order of the court sustaining the motion does not state the grounds upon which new trial was granted. A number of errors are assigned by defendant in the petition in error, all of which relate to the proposition that the verdict is sustained by the record in the case. In Conservative Loan Co. v. Salsbury, 75 Okla. 194, 182 P. 685, it is held:

"The discretion of the trial court in granting a new trial is so broad that its action in so doing will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record shows clearly that the court has erred in its view of some pure and unmixed question of law, and that the order granting a new trial is based upon such erroneous view of the law."

From an examination of the order granting a new trial, we are unable to tell upon what grounds the court based its judgment in vacating the verdict and granting a new trial. Therefore, we cannot say the court erred with respect to some pure, simple, and unmixed question of law in ordering a new trial.

For the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss is sustained and the appeal dismissed upon authority of Conservative Loan Co. v. Salsbury, supra.


Summaries of

Elliott v. Jenkins

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Dec 2, 1924
231 P. 234 (Okla. 1924)
Case details for

Elliott v. Jenkins

Case Details

Full title:ELLIOTT v. JENKINS

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Dec 2, 1924

Citations

231 P. 234 (Okla. 1924)
107 Okla. 134

Citing Cases

Dickson v. BNSF Ry. Co.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has examined that language and determined its meaning to be that proof of…