CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PAC. RY. v. DAVIS

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PAC. RY. v. DAVIS
1909 OK 321
101 P. 1118
Case Number: ___
Decided: 05/12/1909
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.
v.
DAVIS.

SYLLABUS

An assignment of error in this court to the effect that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial will bring before this court for review every exception, saved by the complaining party during the progress of the trial, that was presented to the court below by the motion for a new trial.

Error from District Court, Comanche County; F. E. Gillette, Judge.

Action by D. E. Davis against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Williams, J., dissenting.

W. C. Stevens, C. O. Blake, H. B. Low, and T. R. Beman, for plaintiff in error.

B. M. Parmenter, C. M. Myers, and C. O. Clark, for defendant in error.

KANE, C. J.

This case, in so far as the questions of substantive law involved are concerned, is identical with C., R. I. & P Ry. Co. v. Johnson, decided at this term of court,

Counsel for defendant in error attacks the record in this court upon two grounds: (1) The case-made contains no recital or averment that it contains all the evidence submitted at the trial of the cause; and (2) that there are no errors specifically assigned. There seems to be no ground of complaint as to the first proposition. The case-made, on page 131, contains the following statement: "And the foregoing contains true and correct copies of all the pleadings in said cause, and a true, full, complete, and correct statement and recital of all of the evidence offered and introduced," etc.

The specifications of error are as follows: First, the petition in said cause does not state a cause of action against said plaintiff in error; second, the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial in the said cause. In Kellogg v. School District, 13 Okl. 285, 74 P. 110, it was held that "an assignment of error in this court, to the effect that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, will bring before this court for review every exception saved by the complaining party during the progress of the trial."

We think the record and assignment of errors are sufficient to present the question upon which this case is decided. All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., who dissents.