cross-petition error in Oklahoma

1928In the case of Title Guaranty & Surety Company v. Foster, 84 Okla. 291 , 203 Pac. 231 , this court held that: “The filing of a cross-petition in error attached to * * * case-made previously filed in the Supreme Court to reverse or modify the judgment or final order * * * ‘is the commencement of a proceeding in error in the Supreme Court at the instance of the party filing- cross-petition in ’error,” and “constitutes' a cross-appeal, and * * * will not be dismissed because cross-plaintiff in error did not prepare, serve, and have settled a ca'se-made and file same with his .cross-petition in er

1928In the case of Title Guaranty & Surety Company v. Foster, 84 Okla. 291 , 203 Pac. 231 , this court held that: “The filing of a cross-petition in error attached to * * * case-made previously filed in the Supreme Court to reverse or modify the judgment or final order * * * ‘is the commencement of a proceeding in error in the Supreme Court at the instance of the party filing- cross-petition in ’error,” and “constitutes' a cross-appeal, and * * * will not be dismissed because cross-plaintiff in error did not prepare, serve, and have settled a ca'se-made and file same with his .cross-petition in er

1952In Wolfe v. Graham, supra, it is stated: “ ‘Where a cross-petition in error is not filed in this court until after the expiration of six months from the date of the final judgment or order complained of, this court has no jurisdic tion over the subject-matter and the cross appeal will be dismissed.’ Bilby v. Bilby, 127 Old. 9, 251 P. 611 .” 12 O.S.1951 § 972 provides that the appeal must be taken within three months from the date of the rendition o'f the judgment or final order complained of unless within said three months time is extended in which to perfect the appeal.

1937In Haygood v. Pinker, 112 Okla. 30 , 239 P. 456 , and Bilby v. Bilby, 127 Okla. 9 , 251 P. 611 , we have held that a cross-petition in error must be filed within six months from the date of final judgment or this court will- not review the errors presented by such cross-appeal.

1926Stats. 1921), which is regular on its lace and recites therein a finding by the court that accident or misfortune which could not reasonably have been avoided has been shown, will not be reviewed on motion to dismiss.” The syllabus in that case seems to have been based upon a quotation in that opinion taken from Rogers, Co. Treas., v. Bass & Harbour Co., 47 Okla. 786 , 150 Pac. 706 . reading as follows: “Where an order of extension was made under the -provision of said section 5246, and the order is regular on its face, and recites therein a finding by the court that accident or misfortune whi

1926Stats. 1921), which is regular on its lace and recites therein a finding by the court that accident or misfortune which could not reasonably have been avoided has been shown, will not be reviewed on motion to dismiss.” The syllabus in that case seems to have been based upon a quotation in that opinion taken from Rogers, Co. Treas., v. Bass & Harbour Co., 47 Okla. 786 , 150 Pac. 706 . reading as follows: “Where an order of extension was made under the -provision of said section 5246, and the order is regular on its face, and recites therein a finding by the court that accident or misfortune whi

1925“When a defendant in error fails to file a cross-petition in error, only those questions presented for assignment in the petition in error are properly reviewable by the Supreme Court on appeal.” Higgins-Jones Realty Co. v. Davis, 60 Okla. 20 , 158 Pac. 1160 . *103 In Kibby v. Binion, 70 Okla. 96 , 172 Pac. 1091 , the court said: “In the trial of tbe case, several exceptions were saved by tbe defendants to tbe rulings of tbe court, which exceptions are extensively argued in defendant’s brief; but in view o¿ tbe fact that no cross-appeal bad been filed by tbe defendant, and as tbe judgment rend

1925“When a defendant in error fails to file a cross-petition in error, only those questions presented for assignment in the petition in error are properly reviewable by the Supreme Court on appeal.” Higgins-Jones Realty Co. v. Davis, 60 Okla. 20 , 158 Pac. 1160 . *103 In Kibby v. Binion, 70 Okla. 96 , 172 Pac. 1091 , the court said: “In the trial of tbe case, several exceptions were saved by tbe defendants to tbe rulings of tbe court, which exceptions are extensively argued in defendant’s brief; but in view o¿ tbe fact that no cross-appeal bad been filed by tbe defendant, and as tbe judgment rend

1952Bates v. Starr Coal Co., 191 Okla. 451 , 130 P. 2d 532 ; Miller v. Robberson, 204 Okla. 114 , 227 P. 2d 654 .

1952Bates v. Starr Coal Co., 191 Okla. 451 , 130 P. 2d 532 ; Miller v. Robberson, 204 Okla. 114 , 227 P. 2d 654 .

1952Bates v. Starr Coal Co., 191 Okla. 451 , 130 P. 2d 532 ; Miller v. Robberson, 204 Okla. 114 , 227 P. 2d 654 .

1952Bates v. Starr Coal Co., 191 Okla. 451 , 130 P. 2d 532 ; Miller v. Robberson, 204 Okla. 114 , 227 P. 2d 654 .

1946Board of County Commissioners of Kiowa County v. Kiowa National Bank, 166 Okla. 255 , 27 P. 2d 338 .

1946Board of County Commissioners of Kiowa County v. Kiowa National Bank, 166 Okla. 255 , 27 P. 2d 338 .

1937In Haygood v. Pinker, 112 Okla. 30 , 239 P. 456 , and Bilby v. Bilby, 127 Okla. 9 , 251 P. 611 , we have held that a cross-petition in error must be filed within six months from the date of final judgment or this court will- not review the errors presented by such cross-appeal.

1933In the case of Bilby v. Bilby, 127 Okla. 9 , 251 P. 611 , this court said: “Where a cross-petition in error is not filed in this court until after the expiration of six months from the date of the final judgment or order complained of, this court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter and- the cross-appeal will be dismissed.” Section 547, O.

1924No. 35, of Greer County, 23 Okla. 894 , 101 Pac. 1121 , where the court said in the second paragraph of the syllabus:.

1924No. 35, of Greer County, 23 Okla. 894 , 101 Pac. 1121 , where the court said in the second paragraph of the syllabus:.

1920Co. v. Lewis, 39 Okla. 677 , 136 Pae. 396, that: “This court will not consider whether, on the trial of a cause, there was error in a ruling against defendant in error, not involved in any error assigned by plaintiff in error, in the absence of a cross-petition in error.” Westlake v. Cooper et al., 69 Oklahoma, 171 Pac. 859 ; Higgins-Jones Realty Co. v. Davis, 60 Okla. 20 , 158 Pac. 1160 .

1918Co. v. Lewis, 39 Okla. 677 , 136 Pac. 396 , it is held: “This court will not consider whether, on the trial of a cause, there was error in a ruling against defendant, not involved in any error assigned toy plaintiff in error in the absence of a cross-petition in error.” And in the body of the opinion it is said: “At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court sustained a demurrer to the evidence offered for the purpose of showing subsequent illness resulting from the cold suffered toy plaintiff while in the waiting room, and, toy the instructions given the jury, limited her right of recover

1918Co. v. Lewis, 39 Okla. 677 , 136 Pac. 396 , it is held: “This court will not consider whether, on the trial of a cause, there was error in a ruling against defendant, not involved in any error assigned toy plaintiff in error in the absence of a cross-petition in error.” And in the body of the opinion it is said: “At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court sustained a demurrer to the evidence offered for the purpose of showing subsequent illness resulting from the cold suffered toy plaintiff while in the waiting room, and, toy the instructions given the jury, limited her right of recover

1918Co. v. Lewis, 39 Okla. 677 , 136 Pac. 396 , it is held: “This court will not consider whether, on the trial of a cause, there was error in a ruling against defendant, not involved in any error assigned toy plaintiff in error in the absence of a cross-petition in error.” And in the body of the opinion it is said: “At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court sustained a demurrer to the evidence offered for the purpose of showing subsequent illness resulting from the cold suffered toy plaintiff while in the waiting room, and, toy the instructions given the jury, limited her right of recover

1980Wat Henry Pontiac, supra. A cross-petition in error by Akins sought reversal of an order of the trial court that denied attaching of certain items as cost.

1980We do not take this statement to be a modification of the rule that failure of the appellee to file a cross petition in error precludes review of alleged errors made against him, In re Lee’s Estate, 206 Okl. 275 , 243 P.2d 1013 (1952), that may demonstrate entitlement to affirmative relief.

1980We do not take this statement to be a modification of the rule that failure of the appellee to file a cross petition in error precludes review of alleged errors made against him, In re Lee’s Estate, 206 Okl. 275 , 243 P.2d 1013 (1952), that may demonstrate entitlement to affirmative relief.

1978Tulsa Hotel Co. v. Sparks, 197 Okl. 644 , 174 P.2d 920 ; Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. McFee, 198 Okl. 37 , 174 P.2d 918 ; Trailmobile Co. v. Ray, 199 Okl. 9 , 180 P.2d 1005 .

1978Tulsa Hotel Co. v. Sparks, 197 Okl. 644 , 174 P.2d 920 ; Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. McFee, 198 Okl. 37 , 174 P.2d 918 ; Trailmobile Co. v. Ray, 199 Okl. 9 , 180 P.2d 1005 .

1978Tulsa Hotel Co. v. Sparks, 197 Okl. 644 , 174 P.2d 920 ; Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. McFee, 198 Okl. 37 , 174 P.2d 918 ; Trailmobile Co. v. Ray, 199 Okl. 9 , 180 P.2d 1005 .

1978Tulsa Hotel Co. v. Sparks, 197 Okl. 644 , 174 P.2d 920 ; Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. McFee, 198 Okl. 37 , 174 P.2d 918 ; Trailmobile Co. v. Ray, 199 Okl. 9 , 180 P.2d 1005 .

1978Tulsa Hotel Co. v. Sparks, 197 Okl. 644 , 174 P.2d 920 ; Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. McFee, 198 Okl. 37 , 174 P.2d 918 ; Trailmobile Co. v. Ray, 199 Okl. 9 , 180 P.2d 1005 .

1978Tulsa Hotel Co. v. Sparks, 197 Okl. 644 , 174 P.2d 920 ; Wilcox Oil & Gas Co. v. McFee, 198 Okl. 37 , 174 P.2d 918 ; Trailmobile Co. v. Ray, 199 Okl. 9 , 180 P.2d 1005 .

1967Allison v. Allen, Okl., 326 P.2d 1059 ; Video Independent Theatres, Inc. v. Walker, Okl., 308 P.2d 958 .

1967Allison v. Allen, Okl., 326 P.2d 1059 ; Video Independent Theatres, Inc. v. Walker, Okl., 308 P.2d 958 .

1966In Bums v. Woodson, Okl., 363 P.2d 233 , we held that a cross-petition in error will not be considered where the record shows that no motion for a new trial was filed by cross-appellant and that a cross-appeal must be prosecuted like other appeals or it will be dismissed.

1962In discussing such contention we said: “However, in this class of cases where the plaintiff has failed to object to the receipt of the verdict or complain of the entry of judgment thereon and has failed upon appeal to file a cross-petition in error, this court has always held that the judgment based upon the verdict against the principal cannot stand. * * * * * * * * * “The rule, however, is confined strictly in its application to cases where the sole and only responsibility of the master is under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and by reason of the exclusive negligence of the servant who

1962In discussing such contention we said: "However, in this class of cases where the plaintiff has failed to object to the receipt of the verdict or complain of the entry of judgment thereon and has failed upon appeal to file a cross-petition in error, this court has always held that the judgment based upon the verdict against the principal cannot stand. * * * * * * * * * "The rule, however, is confined strictly in its application to cases where the sole and only responsibility of the master is under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and by reason of the exclusive negligence of the servant who

1955One of the later cases following that rule is Paschall v. Royalties Inc., 197 Okl. 654 , 174 P.2d 914 .

1955One of the later cases following that rule is Paschall v. Royalties Inc., 197 Okl. 654 , 174 P.2d 914 .

1951In Corn Belt Bank v. Baker, 190 Okla. 278 , 122 P. 2d 989 , we said: “This court will not consider whether, in the trial of a cause, there was error in a ruling against defendant in error, not involved in any error assigned by plaintiff in error, in the absence of a cross-petition in error.” Affirmed.

1951In Corn Belt Bank v. Baker, 190 Okla. 278 , 122 P. 2d 989 , we said: “This court will not consider whether, in the trial of a cause, there was error in a ruling against defendant in error, not involved in any error assigned by plaintiff in error, in the absence of a cross-petition in error.” Affirmed.

1937Here there is more than a general denial, for the allegations of the cross-petition state the defense to plaintiff’s cause of action 'as far as the lien on the casing is concerned, and the case of Leighton v. Crowell (1916) 60 Okla. 219 , 159 P. 1119 , cited by plaintiff in support of this argument, is not in point.

1937In Haygood v. Pinker, 112 Okla. 30 , 239 P. 456 , and Bilby v. Bilby, 127 Okla. 9 , 251 P. 611 , we have held that a cross-petition in error must be filed within six months from the date of final judgment or this court will- not review the errors presented by such cross-appeal.

1937In Haygood v. Pinker, 112 Okla. 30 , 239 P. 456 , and Bilby v. Bilby, 127 Okla. 9 , 251 P. 611 , we have held that a cross-petition in error must be filed within six months from the date of final judgment or this court will- not review the errors presented by such cross-appeal.

1937Here there is more than a general denial, for the allegations of the cross-petition state the defense to plaintiff’s cause of action 'as far as the lien on the casing is concerned, and the case of Leighton v. Crowell (1916) 60 Okla. 219 , 159 P. 1119 , cited by plaintiff in support of this argument, is not in point.

1936This cause was argued and submitted with cause No. 26011, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. First National Bank of Oklahoma City, this day decided, 178 Okla. 260 , 62 P. (2d) 1220 : the only difference being that a cross-petition in error di *264 rects our attention to tlie fact that the court did not include judgmen. for interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from date, of the payment under protest.

1936This cause was argued and submitted with cause No. 26011, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. First National Bank of Oklahoma City, this day decided, 178 Okla. 260 , 62 P. (2d) 1220 : the only difference being that a cross-petition in error di *264 rects our attention to tlie fact that the court did not include judgmen. for interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from date, of the payment under protest.

1935As to: the cross-petition in error of defendant McGrath, it is sufficient to say that Mc-Grath’s only claim is based upon a resale tax deed. which contains the same infirmity as the one involved in the case of Mahoney v. Estep, 171 Okla. 101 , 38 P. (2d) 537 .

1935As to: the cross-petition in error of defendant McGrath, it is sufficient to say that Mc-Grath’s only claim is based upon a resale tax deed. which contains the same infirmity as the one involved in the case of Mahoney v. Estep, 171 Okla. 101 , 38 P. (2d) 537 .