PROCHNAU v. MARTEN

Annotate this Case

PROCHNAU v. MARTEN
1914 OK 64
138 P. 807
41 Okla. 409
Case Number: 1842
Decided: 02/10/1914
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PROCHNAU
v.
MARTEN.

Syllabus

¶0 1. SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION. Petition examined, and held to clearly state a cause of action.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR--Presentation for Review-- Transcript. Errors alleged to have occurred during the trial cannot be brought here for review on a transcript. They must be preserved and presented here by bill of exceptions or case-made.

Error from District Court, Major County;

Action by B. B. Marten against Dan Prochnau. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

H. M. Bear, for plaintiff in error
E. W. Snoddy, for defendant in error

BREWER, C.

¶1 This cause was dismissed by this court in a former opinion, for the reason that the final judgment had not been brought into the record. Since then the parties by agreement have been permitted to amend by bringing the judgment into the record, which is here certified as a transcript. The errors assigned are: First, that the petition filed in this case does not state a cause of action. Second, error in overruling the motion for new trial.

¶2 The second error alleged cannot be considered on transcript. None of the evidence is before the court. To have considered matters occurring at the trial the proceedings thereof must be preserved and presented here for review on bill of exceptions or case-made. Simpson v. Henderson-Sturges Piano Co., 31 Okla. 623, 122 P. 174; St. L. & S. F. R. Co. v. McCollum & Baker, 23 Okla. 899, 101 P. 1120.

¶3 The first ground alleged as error is not sound. We have examined the petition carefully, and think it very clearly and unquestionably states a cause of action. A very close study of appellant's contentions in the brief and the one authority he cites fails to shake this conclusion. To set the petition out and discuss it would serve no good purpose, as no new or interesting question is presented.

¶4 The cause should be affirmed.

¶5 By the Court: It is so ordered.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.