Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 Okla. 342

151 P 1060

Lamb v. Milne

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 21, 1915

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1915-09-21

<p> Error from District Court, Logan County; A. H. Huston, Judge. </p> <p>Action by E. J. Lamb against James Milne and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1916

1 state decisions

Relies on Beugler v. Polk

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1915-09-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 Opinion by

MATHEWS, -C.

¶2 Plaintiff in error, in his petition in error filed in this court, sets out the following assignments of error:

“(1) Irregularity in the proceeding of the court, by which the plaintiff was prevented in having a fair trial; (2) that the judgment was not sustained by the evidence; *343 (3) that the judgment is contrary to the law; (4)- error in law committed at the trial and excepted to by the plaintiff; (5) error of the court in its construction of the contract, marked ‘Exhibit A,’ to the plaintiff’s amended petition in holding that the said contract is an option.”

¶3 It will be noted that the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for a new trial has not been assigned as error in the petition in error filed in this court. Our courts have uniformly held this omission to be fatal when it is sought, as in the case at bar, to have this court review the errors alleged to have been committed during the progress of the trial in the court below. Beugler et al. v. Polk, 46 Okla. 403, 148 Pac, 990, and authorities there cited.

¶4 For this reason we recommend that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

¶5 By the Court: It is so ordered.

/51/okla/342 · .json · Public domain