Faust v. Fenton

10 Citing cases

  1. Bardwell v. Riverside Oil Refining Co.

    280 P. 1083 (Okla. 1929)   Cited 3 times

    " The following cases hold that a review of the action of a justice of the peace may be had in the county, superior or district courts upon questions of law presented by a bill of exceptions and petition in error, under sections 999 and 1000, C. O. S. 1921, supra: C., R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Locke, 69 Okla. 283, 172 P. 52; Faust v. Fenton, 65 Okla. 243, 166 P. 731; Talley v. Maupin, 64 Okla. 196, 166 P. 734; McCullough v. Root, 64 Okla. 73, 166 P. 735. In the case of Cohn v. Clark, 48 Okla. 500, 150 P. 467, there was a suit in garnishment attempted before a justice of the peace, but there was no service of summons upon the defendant.

  2. Parks v. Norman Mun. Hosp

    1984 OK 53 (Okla. 1984)   Cited 289 times
    Holding that "[a]ll findings of fact made in the trial tribunal's decision under review are conclusive and binding unless they have been ascertained to lack support in competent evidence."

    Shelton v. Lambert, Okla., 399 P.2d 467, 470 (1965). Pre-1969 Oklahoma law affords at least three discrete instances of a de novo consideration in which substitution of one decision for another could be effected by transfer of the case to another court: (a) from the justice of the peace court to the county or district court, Cullen v. Sloniker, 39 Okla. 353, 135 P. 341 (1913); Faust v. Fenton, 65 Okla. 243, 166 P. 731 (1917); Fuss v. Anderson, 95 Okla. 2, 217 P. 436 (1923); (b) from the probate (county) court to the district court; In Shailer's Estate, Okla., 266 P.2d 613 (1954); and (c) from the city auditor or Secretary of State to the Supreme Court in initiative and referendum petition contests, Shelton v. Lambert, supra; In re Initiative Petition No. 260, State Question 377, Okla., 298 P.2d 753 (1956). The 1977 amendments now in force altered the earlier en banc re-examination design in but two aspects: (1) the intra-court authority to re-examine the trial judge's decision now resides in an assigned three-judge panel rather than in the en banc tribunal and (2) fact findings of the trial judge are now impervious to any alteration unless the panel finds them to be clearly against the weight of the evidence.

  3. Evans v. Ball

    330 P.2d 1040 (Okla. 1958)

    On June 4, 1957, the case was heard without a jury, before Justice of the Peace, Anna Belle Wright, who, at the close of the evidence, in her journal entry of judgment, found the facts as above stated, and further found that since Ball, on May 1, 1957, served written notice on defendant Evans to vacate and quit the premises on or before June 1, 1957, and since defendant Evans in obedience to said notice vacated the premises during the same day, plaintiff Ball could not recover rent against him for the month of May, although Evans left the premises without giving the thirty day notice to terminate the tenancy; and entered judgment in favor of defendant Evans. Plaintiff Ball appealed from the judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court to the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, by way of petition in error and bill of exceptions as authorized by Tit. 39 O.S. 1951 Sections 214[ 39-214] and 21[ 39-21]5 [ 39-214] [ 39-215], and our decision in Faust v. Fenton, 65 Okla. 243, 166 P. 731. The District Court thereafter transferred the case to the Court of Common Pleas of Oklahoma County for trial. Before the trial commenced, defendant filed a motion in that court to dismiss the appeal because of alleged insufficiency of the bill of exceptions to confer jurisdiction upon the court to hear the appeal. The Court overruled the motion, to which defendant Evans excepted, and on final hearing reversed the judgment of the Justice of the Peace and assessed accrued costs against defendant Evans and retained the cause for hearing on its merits as required by Tit. 12 O.S. 1951 sec. 982 [ 12-982].

  4. Woods v. Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co.

    129 Okla. 91 (Okla. 1928)   Cited 5 times

    We are of the opinion that the contention of defendant must be sustained. There is dictum in the opinion in the case of Faust v. Fenton, 65 Okla. 243, 166 P. 731, supporting the contention of the plaintiff. The question herein involved was not, however, before the court in that case, was not briefed, and what is there said is not controlling.

  5. Muskogee Electric Tract. Co. v. Watterson

    218 P. 796 (Okla. 1923)   Cited 2 times

    The procedure prescribed by these sections as to justice of the peace courts has been upheld by this court as being constitutional. Faust v. Fenton, 65 Okla. 243, 166 P. 731; Talley v. Maupin, 64 Okla. 196, 166 P. 734; McCullough v. Root, 64 Okla. 73, 166 P. 735; C., R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Locke, 69 Okla. ___, 172 P. 52. Section 1000, supra, provides as follows: "Bills of exception may be made and signed in any case tried before a justice of the peace, whether the action be tried by a jury or by the justice, and such bill may be signed at any time within ten days from the day on which judgment is given in the action, and not thereafter."

  6. Fuss v. Anderson

    217 P. 436 (Okla. 1923)   Cited 2 times

    Section 14, article 7, of the Constitution, authorizes, until otherwise, provided by law, but one method of appeal from, judgments of justice of the peace courts, upon the hearing of which a trial de novo shall be had upon questions both of law and of fact. These cases, which arose prior to the adoption of the Revised Laws of 1910, correctly stated the law, but counsel for plaintiff in error have evidently overlooked the case of Faust v. Fenton, 65 Okla. 243, 166 P. 731, wherein the court held, in the case which arose after the adoption of Revised Laws of 1910, that said adoption of sections 5455, 5456, and 5457, Rev. Laws a judgment of a justice of the peace", the rule being announced in the syllabus as follows: "In this jurisdiction there are two procedures for a review of a judgment of a justice of the peace court: (1) By appeal to the county, superior, or district court, to be tried de novo upon both questions of law and fact; and (2) by review upon questions of law upon bill of exceptions and petition in error."

  7. Cohen v. Cochran Grocery Co.

    70 Okla. 168 (Okla. 1918)   Cited 7 times

    There are several decisions of this court construing the section quoted in connection with other provisions of the statutes, and holding that review of the action of a justice of the peace may be had in the county, superior, or district court upon questions of law presented by a bill of exceptions and petition in error. See Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Locke, 69 Okla. 283, 172 P. 52; Faust v. Fenton, 65 Okla. 243, 166 P. 731; Talley v. Maupin, 64 Okla. 196, 166 P. 734, L. R. A. 1917F, 912; McCullough v. Root, 64 Okla. 73, 166 P. 735. The question of jurisdiction of the person may be presented on appeal by bill of exception and petition; a supersedeas bond may be made for purpose of such appeal, not for the purpose of appeal as to both law and fact, and such course will not constitute a general appearance. It is not the making and filing of a bond, but the relief invoked when filing the particular bond, that determines the character of the appearance.

  8. Chicago, R.I. P. R. Co. v. Locke

    172 P. 52 (Okla. 1918)   Cited 6 times

    The trial court committed reversible error in dismissing the proceedings dismissed. This case is reversed and remanded upon the authority of Faust v. Fenton, 65 Okla. 243, 166 P. 731, Talley v. Maupin, 64 Okla. 196, 166 P. 734, L. R. A. 1917F, 912, and McCullough v. Root, 64 Okla. 73, 166 P. 735, with instructions to set aside the order dismissing said proceeding for review of said judgment rendered by the justice of peace court, and to proceed to hear and determine the same. By the Court: It is so ordered.

  9. McCullough v. Root

    166 P. 735 (Okla. 1917)   Cited 5 times

    It appears that no copy of the letter was attached as an exhibit to the bill of particulars, and no other proof of service of notice to vacate was offered by the plaintiff. And this certainly raised a question that was properly appealable to the district court by a bill of exceptions. Paul v. Fenton, Administrator, 65 Oklahoma, 166 P. 731. And no motion for a new trial was necessary before the aggrieved party was entitled to appeal.

  10. Talley v. Maupin

    166 P. 734 (Okla. 1917)   Cited 6 times

    "In this jurisdiction there are two procedures for a review of a judgment of a justice of the peace court: (1) By appeal to the county, superior, or district court, to be tried de novo upon both questions of law and fact; and (2) by a review upon questions of law upon bill of exceptions and petition in error." Faust v. Fenton, Adm'r, 65 Oklahoma, 166 P. 731. In view of this pronouncement, we hold in line with Winfrey v. Benton, supra, and the other cases and authorities herein cited, that mandamus will not lie to compel a justice of the peace to grant an application for change of venue, for the reason that the party making such application has a plain and adequate remedy at law by bill of exceptions and petition in error.