Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Okla. 300

50 P 262

Smock v. Carter

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided September 3, 1897

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1897-09-03

<p> Error from the Prolate Court of Kay County; before Virgil H. Brown, Prolate Judge. </p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1990

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-09-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*301 Per Curiam:

¶1 This was an action in the probate court of warranty in sale of personal property. The record shows that after the amended answer had been filed, by leave of the court, and which pleaded the general issue in addition to special matters of defense pleaded in the original answer, the amendment pleading the general issue, was by the court stricken from the amended answer; that when the cause was called for trial the court required the defendant to assume the burden of establishing the issue and to introduce his testimony before any testimony had been introduced by the plaintiff; that after defendant’s testimony had been introduced, the court sustained a demurrer thereto, and thereupon and without any evidence being offered in support of the plaintiff’s petition, or to show the amount of damages, if any, to -which the plaintiff was entitled, the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of the damages claimed in his petition, and upon such verdict, the judgment herein was rendered.

¶2 It requires no argument or citation of authorities to demonstrate that there has been no proper trial of this cause, and that the proceedings had were but a mere travesty upon judicial procedure.

¶3 The cause is therefore reversed and remanded with instructions to permit the amended answrer to be filed and proceed according to established rules.

/6/okla/300 · .json · Public domain