specifications error in Oklahoma

1955Next, the defendant urges that, Instruction No. 4, which is a definition of the term “under influence of intoxicating liquor”, did not meet the specifications of such an instruction, as given in Luellen v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 382 , 81 P.2d 323, 329 .

1955Next, the defendant urges that, Instruction No. 4, which is a definition of the term “under influence of intoxicating liquor”, did not meet the specifications of such an instruction, as given in Luellen v. State, 64 Okl.Cr. 382 , 81 P.2d 323, 329 .

1953Gibbins v. Wade, 202 Okla. 138 , 210 P. 2d 955 ; Dryden v. Burkhart, 198 Okla. 239 , 177 P. 2d 121 ; Butterick Co. v. Molen, 192 Okla. 602 , 138 P. 2d 89 . (2) The specifications of error urged by defendants contain charges of a general nature that the trial court erred in overruling defendants’ motion to vacate judgment.

1953Gibbins v. Wade, 202 Okla. 138 , 210 P. 2d 955 ; Dryden v. Burkhart, 198 Okla. 239 , 177 P. 2d 121 ; Butterick Co. v. Molen, 192 Okla. 602 , 138 P. 2d 89 . (2) The specifications of error urged by defendants contain charges of a general nature that the trial court erred in overruling defendants’ motion to vacate judgment.

1953Gibbins v. Wade, 202 Okla. 138 , 210 P. 2d 955 ; Dryden v. Burkhart, 198 Okla. 239 , 177 P. 2d 121 ; Butterick Co. v. Molen, 192 Okla. 602 , 138 P. 2d 89 . (2) The specifications of error urged by defendants contain charges of a general nature that the trial court erred in overruling defendants’ motion to vacate judgment.

1953Gibbins v. Wade, 202 Okla. 138 , 210 P. 2d 955 ; Dryden v. Burkhart, 198 Okla. 239 , 177 P. 2d 121 ; Butterick Co. v. Molen, 192 Okla. 602 , 138 P. 2d 89 . (2) The specifications of error urged by defendants contain charges of a general nature that the trial court erred in overruling defendants’ motion to vacate judgment.

1953Gibbins v. Wade, 202 Okla. 138 , 210 P. 2d 955 ; Dryden v. Burkhart, 198 Okla. 239 , 177 P. 2d 121 ; Butterick Co. v. Molen, 192 Okla. 602 , 138 P. 2d 89 . (2) The specifications of error urged by defendants contain charges of a general nature that the trial court erred in overruling defendants’ motion to vacate judgment.

1953Gibbins v. Wade, 202 Okla. 138 , 210 P. 2d 955 ; Dryden v. Burkhart, 198 Okla. 239 , 177 P. 2d 121 ; Butterick Co. v. Molen, 192 Okla. 602 , 138 P. 2d 89 . (2) The specifications of error urged by defendants contain charges of a general nature that the trial court erred in overruling defendants’ motion to vacate judgment.

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1939In connection with this proposition, we are cited to the cases of City of Tulsa v. Frye, 165 Okla. 302 , 25 P. 2d 1080 ; Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104 , 12 P. 2d 229 ; City of Ada v. Burrow, 171 Okla. 142 , 42 P. 2d 111 ; Oklahoma City v. Banks, 175 Okla. 569 , 53 P. 2d 1120 , and Short v. Oklahoma City, 177 Okla. 202 , 58 P. 2d 334 .

1936Had this defendant prosecuted a separate appeal, there would be merit in this contention, but since the petition in error was joint and the specifications of error were joint and not several, what we have said in Kingkade v. Plummer, 111 Okla. 197 , 239 P. 628 , applies to the situation here presented, wherein we said; “It is finally contended that the judgment should be reversed as to the defendant Andrew Kingkade, for the reason that the evidence shows that his only connection with the transaction set forth in the pleadings was that of trustee.

1936Had this defendant prosecuted a separate appeal, there would be merit in this contention, but since the petition in error was joint and the specifications of error were joint and not several, what we have said in Kingkade v. Plummer, 111 Okla. 197 , 239 P. 628 , applies to the situation here presented, wherein we said; “It is finally contended that the judgment should be reversed as to the defendant Andrew Kingkade, for the reason that the evidence shows that his only connection with the transaction set forth in the pleadings was that of trustee.

1936The difficulty of this contention is that there is no several assignment of error. “ ‘A joint assignment of error must be good as to all who join in it or it will be good as to none.’ Niles v. Citizens National Bank of El Reno, 110 Okla. 146 , 236 P. 414 ; 2 Cyc. 1003; 3 C.

1936The difficulty of this contention is that there is no several assignment of error. “ ‘A joint assignment of error must be good as to all who join in it or it will be good as to none.’ Niles v. Citizens National Bank of El Reno, 110 Okla. 146 , 236 P. 414 ; 2 Cyc. 1003; 3 C.

1925On this point this court, in the case of Shawnee Light & Power Co. v. Sears, 21 Okla. 13 , 95 Pac. 449 , states: “A demurrer to the evidence admits all the facts which the evidence in the slightest degree tends to prove, and all the inferences or conclusions 'which may be reasonably and logically drawn from the evidence.

1925On this point this court, in the case of Shawnee Light & Power Co. v. Sears, 21 Okla. 13 , 95 Pac. 449 , states: “A demurrer to the evidence admits all the facts which the evidence in the slightest degree tends to prove, and all the inferences or conclusions 'which may be reasonably and logically drawn from the evidence.

1925Upon the trial of the case to the court, without the intervention of a jury, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Walker, for the amount sued for; motion for a new trial was filed and duly overruled, from which order and judgment of the trial court the appellant prosecutes this appeal, and sets forth various specifications of error, but urges only three of the specifications of error, viz., error of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial, in overruling the demurrer to the petition, and in admitting evidence on the part of the plaintiff over the objections of the defenda

1925Upon the trial of the case to the court, without the intervention of a jury, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Walker, for the amount sued for; motion for a new trial was filed and duly overruled, from which order and judgment of the trial court the appellant prosecutes this appeal, and sets forth various specifications of error, but urges only three of the specifications of error, viz., error of the court in overruling the motion for a new trial, in overruling the demurrer to the petition, and in admitting evidence on the part of the plaintiff over the objections of the defenda

1924Motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and the defendant appealed and set forth in his assignment of error the following specifications of error: “(1) That the district court of Greer county, Okla., erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial. “(2) That said court erred in sustaining the demurrer of defendant in error to the evidence of the plaintiff in error. “(3) That said judgment is contrary to the law and evidence and not supported by either.” The first proposition presented is the error complained of, wherein the court directed a verdict for the plaintif

1924And in support of this contention the appellant argues that Humphrey and Humphrey were the joint lenders and managing agents of and with the Union Central Life Insurance Company, and likewise acted as the agent in negotiating the loan .received and in- disbursing the funds of and for the appellants, and assert that one person cannot be employed as agent for the borrowers to obtain a loan from himself, or from the party of whom he is managing agent, and in support of this contention cite the case of Bell v. Riggs, 34 Okla. 834 , 127 Pac. 427 , Porter v. Wold, 34 Okla. 253 , 127 Pac. 432 , and t

1924And in support of this contention the appellant argues that Humphrey and Humphrey were the joint lenders and managing agents of and with the Union Central Life Insurance Company, and likewise acted as the agent in negotiating the loan .received and in- disbursing the funds of and for the appellants, and assert that one person cannot be employed as agent for the borrowers to obtain a loan from himself, or from the party of whom he is managing agent, and in support of this contention cite the case of Bell v. Riggs, 34 Okla. 834 , 127 Pac. 427 , Porter v. Wold, 34 Okla. 253 , 127 Pac. 432 , and t

1924And in support of this contention the appellant argues that Humphrey and Humphrey were the joint lenders and managing agents of and with the Union Central Life Insurance Company, and likewise acted as the agent in negotiating the loan .received and in- disbursing the funds of and for the appellants, and assert that one person cannot be employed as agent for the borrowers to obtain a loan from himself, or from the party of whom he is managing agent, and in support of this contention cite the case of Bell v. Riggs, 34 Okla. 834 , 127 Pac. 427 , Porter v. Wold, 34 Okla. 253 , 127 Pac. 432 , and t

1924And in support of this contention the appellant argues that Humphrey and Humphrey were the joint lenders and managing agents of and with the Union Central Life Insurance Company, and likewise acted as the agent in negotiating the loan .received and in- disbursing the funds of and for the appellants, and assert that one person cannot be employed as agent for the borrowers to obtain a loan from himself, or from the party of whom he is managing agent, and in support of this contention cite the case of Bell v. Riggs, 34 Okla. 834 , 127 Pac. 427 , Porter v. Wold, 34 Okla. 253 , 127 Pac. 432 , and t

1924Motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and the defendant appealed and set forth in his assignment of error the following specifications of error: “(1) That the district court of Greer county, Okla., erred in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for a new trial. “(2) That said court erred in sustaining the demurrer of defendant in error to the evidence of the plaintiff in error. “(3) That said judgment is contrary to the law and evidence and not supported by either.” The first proposition presented is the error complained of, wherein the court directed a verdict for the plaintif

1924And in support of this contention the appellant argues that Humphrey and Humphrey were the joint lenders and managing agents of and with the Union Central Life Insurance Company, and likewise acted as the agent in negotiating the loan .received and in- disbursing the funds of and for the appellants, and assert that one person cannot be employed as agent for the borrowers to obtain a loan from himself, or from the party of whom he is managing agent, and in support of this contention cite the case of Bell v. Riggs, 34 Okla. 834 , 127 Pac. 427 , Porter v. Wold, 34 Okla. 253 , 127 Pac. 432 , and t

1924And in support of this contention the appellant argues that Humphrey and Humphrey were the joint lenders and managing agents of and with the Union Central Life Insurance Company, and likewise acted as the agent in negotiating the loan .received and in- disbursing the funds of and for the appellants, and assert that one person cannot be employed as agent for the borrowers to obtain a loan from himself, or from the party of whom he is managing agent, and in support of this contention cite the case of Bell v. Riggs, 34 Okla. 834 , 127 Pac. 427 , Porter v. Wold, 34 Okla. 253 , 127 Pac. 432 , and t

1923“It may now be said’to be the settled rule of this court that where the plaintiff submits his case to the jury, or to the court where a jury is waived, and the defendant neither demurs, nor moves for judgment at the conclusion of all the evidence, the question whether there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the plaintiff’s case is not presented for review by the defendant’s 'motion for a new trial.” Norman v. Lambert, 64 Okla. 238 , 167 Pac. 213 .

1923“It may now be said’to be the settled rule of this court that where the plaintiff submits his case to the jury, or to the court where a jury is waived, and the defendant neither demurs, nor moves for judgment at the conclusion of all the evidence, the question whether there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the plaintiff’s case is not presented for review by the defendant’s 'motion for a new trial.” Norman v. Lambert, 64 Okla. 238 , 167 Pac. 213 .

1923This court in a long line of decisions has adopted a rule as announced in the second I>aragr.aph of the syllabus of the case of Kinney v. Williams, 66 Okla. 167 , 168 Pac. 196 , which is as follows: “In order to bring up for review to this court the instructions of the court, exceptions thereto must be saved in the manner prescribed by statute, and the error in giving the same must be assigned in the motion for new trial and in the petition in error.” No reversible error having been properly presented to this court, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1923This court in a long line of decisions has adopted a rule as announced in the second I>aragr.aph of the syllabus of the case of Kinney v. Williams, 66 Okla. 167 , 168 Pac. 196 , which is as follows: “In order to bring up for review to this court the instructions of the court, exceptions thereto must be saved in the manner prescribed by statute, and the error in giving the same must be assigned in the motion for new trial and in the petition in error.” No reversible error having been properly presented to this court, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1922A correct statement of which is found in the fourth paragraph of the syllabus in the case of Wingate et al. v. Render, 58 Okla. 656 , 160 Pac. 614 . wherein the court said: “To constitute actionable fraud it must be made to appear; (1) That defendant made a material representation; (2) that it was false: (3) that when he made it he knew that it was false, or made it recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; (4) that he made it with the intention that it would be acted upon by plaintiff; (5) that plaintiff acted in reliance upon it; (6) that he thereby suffered

1922A correct statement of which is found in the fourth paragraph of the syllabus in the case of Wingate et al. v. Render, 58 Okla. 656 , 160 Pac. 614 . wherein the court said: “To constitute actionable fraud it must be made to appear; (1) That defendant made a material representation; (2) that it was false: (3) that when he made it he knew that it was false, or made it recklessly, without any knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; (4) that he made it with the intention that it would be acted upon by plaintiff; (5) that plaintiff acted in reliance upon it; (6) that he thereby suffered

1921The only authorities cited by the defenant in his brief are the case of Nikkel v. Conaway, 27 Okla. 405 , 112 Pac. 981 ; section 2239, 3 Elliott on Contracts, and 4580, 5 Elliott; and Clark v. Rhodes, 79 Ind. 342 , as supporting the defendant’s claim that the instructions of the court on the measure of damages were erroneous.

1921The only authorities cited by the defenant in his brief are the case of Nikkel v. Conaway, 27 Okla. 405 , 112 Pac. 981 ; section 2239, 3 Elliott on Contracts, and 4580, 5 Elliott; and Clark v. Rhodes, 79 Ind. 342 , as supporting the defendant’s claim that the instructions of the court on the measure of damages were erroneous.

1921The only authorities cited by the defenant in his brief are the case of Nikkel v. Conaway, 27 Okla. 405 , 112 Pac. 981 ; section 2239, 3 Elliott on Contracts, and 4580, 5 Elliott; and Clark v. Rhodes, 79 Ind. 342 , as supporting the defendant’s claim that the instructions of the court on the measure of damages were erroneous.

1915It was said by the court in Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros., 28 Okla. 525 , 114 Pac. 736 : “Section 4308, Statutes of 1893 (section 5939, Compiled Laws of Oklahoma 1909), provides: ‘The record shall be made up from the petition, the process, return, the pleadings subsequent thereto, reports, verdicts, orders, judgments, and all material acts and proceedings of the court,’ etc. Under this statute, it has been held that motions and orders thereon are not part of the record proper, and can be made part of the appeal record only by bill of exceptions or case-made.” Again, in McCoy v. McCoy,

1915It was said by the court in Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros., 28 Okla. 525 , 114 Pac. 736 : “Section 4308, Statutes of 1893 (section 5939, Compiled Laws of Oklahoma 1909), provides: ‘The record shall be made up from the petition, the process, return, the pleadings subsequent thereto, reports, verdicts, orders, judgments, and all material acts and proceedings of the court,’ etc. Under this statute, it has been held that motions and orders thereon are not part of the record proper, and can be made part of the appeal record only by bill of exceptions or case-made.” Again, in McCoy v. McCoy,

1915It was said by the court in Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros., 28 Okla. 525 , 114 Pac. 736 : “Section 4308, Statutes of 1893 (section 5939, Compiled Laws of Oklahoma 1909), provides: ‘The record shall be made up from the petition, the process, return, the pleadings subsequent thereto, reports, verdicts, orders, judgments, and all material acts and proceedings of the court,’ etc. Under this statute, it has been held that motions and orders thereon are not part of the record proper, and can be made part of the appeal record only by bill of exceptions or case-made.” Again, in McCoy v. McCoy,

1915It was said by the court in Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros., 28 Okla. 525 , 114 Pac. 736 : “Section 4308, Statutes of 1893 (section 5939, Compiled Laws of Oklahoma 1909), provides: ‘The record shall be made up from the petition, the process, return, the pleadings subsequent thereto, reports, verdicts, orders, judgments, and all material acts and proceedings of the court,’ etc. Under this statute, it has been held that motions and orders thereon are not part of the record proper, and can be made part of the appeal record only by bill of exceptions or case-made.” Again, in McCoy v. McCoy,

1914Mahaney v. Union Investment Co., 23 Okla. 533, 101 Pac. 1054 ; McReynolds v. Phipps et al., 31 Okla. 788 , 123 Pac. 1125.

1914Mahaney v. Union Investment Co., 23 Okla. 533, 101 Pac. 1054 ; McReynolds v. Phipps et al., 31 Okla. 788 , 123 Pac. 1125.

1914Upon the authority of Roof et al. v. Franks, 26 Okla. 392 , 110 Pac. 1098 ; Seaver v. Rulison, 29 Okla. 128 , 116 Pac. 802 ; Arkansas Valley Nat.

1914Upon the authority of Roof et al. v. Franks, 26 Okla. 392 , 110 Pac. 1098 ; Seaver v. Rulison, 29 Okla. 128 , 116 Pac. 802 ; Arkansas Valley Nat.