Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

8 Okla. 700

58 P 781

Devine v. Silvers

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided August 24, 1899

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1899-08-24

<p>Appeal — Review—Case-Made. Where the case-made does not show that it contains all the evidence, it cannot be considered, thought the certificate of the trial judge contains a statement to that. effect.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1899-08-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1936

8 state decisions

3018991900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam:

¶1 The assignment of errors include the-overruling of the motion for a new trial, rendering judgment for the defendant in error, giving-erroneous instructions, excluding legal, competent,, material, and relevant testimony, and admitting illegal, incompetent, and immaterial evidence. A discussion of these assignments of error would require an examination of the evidence, but there is no case-made brought here in such a form as to show .that it contains all the evidence-which was heard upon the trial. The statement connected with the evidence simply shows that, “ Case-Closed.” The statement of the stenographer is that “the- *701 above and foregoing is a true and correct transcript of my shorthand notes taken during the course of the trial.” The certificate of the trial judge states that the case-made •contains all the evidence, but such a statement is insufficient. The statement should be inserted in the case itself, and not in the certificate of the judge who settles the case. (Wade v. Gould, this volume, p. 690, Bell v. Bell [Kan. Sup.] 56 Pac. 472.)

¶2 We have examined the instructions of the court which have been objected to, and find no ruling which could have been'prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiffs in •error. The judgment of the court below-is affirmed.

Burford, C. J., having presided in the court below, not -sitting.
/8/okla/700 · .json · Public domain