mere arbitrary rule in Oklahoma

1934This court said in the case of Turner v. Cox, 138 Okla. 225 , 280 P. 568 , in the sixth paragraph of the syllabus, as follows: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.” In the body of the opinion, we further said: “In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 ,

1934This court said in the case of Turner v. Cox, 138 Okla. 225 , 280 P. 568 , in the sixth paragraph of the syllabus, as follows: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.” In the body of the opinion, we further said: “In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 ,

1934This court said in the case of Turner v. Cox, 138 Okla. 225 , 280 P. 568 , in the sixth paragraph of the syllabus, as follows: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.” In the body of the opinion, we further said: “In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 ,

1934This court said in the case of Turner v. Cox, 138 Okla. 225 , 280 P. 568 , in the sixth paragraph of the syllabus, as follows: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.” In the body of the opinion, we further said: “In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 ,

1934This court said in the case of Turner v. Cox, 138 Okla. 225 , 280 P. 568 , in the sixth paragraph of the syllabus, as follows: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.” In the body of the opinion, we further said: “In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 ,

1934This court said in the case of Turner v. Cox, 138 Okla. 225 , 280 P. 568 , in the sixth paragraph of the syllabus, as follows: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.” In the body of the opinion, we further said: “In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 ,

1934This court said in the case of Turner v. Cox, 138 Okla. 225 , 280 P. 568 , in the sixth paragraph of the syllabus, as follows: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.” In the body of the opinion, we further said: “In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 ,

1929In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 , 123 Pac. 1117 , this court said: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good' sense and good law.” In Herbert v. Wagg, 27 Okla. 674 , 117 Pac. 209 , in passing upon this question, this court announced the same rule, thus: “A party bringi

1934“So we hold that this issue was not properly presented by the pleadings or raised in the trial court to authorize this court to here review the same.” Supporting the rule above announced are the following recent cases: Citizens’ Bank of Gans v. Mabray, 90 Okla. 63 , 215 P. 1067 ; Oklahoma Produce Co. v. Cotton Products Co., 111 Okla. 257 , 239 P. 656 ; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107 ; Indian Refining Co. v. Marcrum (Ala.) 88 So. 445 ; Miller v. Thomas, 200 Ill.

1934“So we hold that this issue was not properly presented by the pleadings or raised in the trial court to authorize this court to here review the same.” Supporting the rule above announced are the following recent cases: Citizens’ Bank of Gans v. Mabray, 90 Okla. 63 , 215 P. 1067 ; Oklahoma Produce Co. v. Cotton Products Co., 111 Okla. 257 , 239 P. 656 ; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107 ; Indian Refining Co. v. Marcrum (Ala.) 88 So. 445 ; Miller v. Thomas, 200 Ill.

1934“So we hold that this issue was not properly presented by the pleadings or raised in the trial court to authorize this court to here review the same.” Supporting the rule above announced are the following recent cases: Citizens’ Bank of Gans v. Mabray, 90 Okla. 63 , 215 P. 1067 ; Oklahoma Produce Co. v. Cotton Products Co., 111 Okla. 257 , 239 P. 656 ; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107 ; Indian Refining Co. v. Marcrum (Ala.) 88 So. 445 ; Miller v. Thomas, 200 Ill.

1934This court said in the case of Turner v. Cox, 138 Okla. 225 , 280 P. 568 , in the sixth paragraph of the syllabus, as follows: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.” In the body of the opinion, we further said: “In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 ,

1934This court said in the case of Turner v. Cox, 138 Okla. 225 , 280 P. 568 , in the sixth paragraph of the syllabus, as follows: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.” In the body of the opinion, we further said: “In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 ,

1934“So we hold that this issue was not properly presented by the pleadings or raised in the trial court to authorize this court to here review the same.” Supporting the rule above announced are the following recent cases: Citizens’ Bank of Gans v. Mabray, 90 Okla. 63 , 215 P. 1067 ; Oklahoma Produce Co. v. Cotton Products Co., 111 Okla. 257 , 239 P. 656 ; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107 ; Indian Refining Co. v. Marcrum (Ala.) 88 So. 445 ; Miller v. Thomas, 200 Ill.

1934“So we hold that this issue was not properly presented by the pleadings or raised in the trial court to authorize this court to here review the same.” Supporting the rule above announced are the following recent cases: Citizens’ Bank of Gans v. Mabray, 90 Okla. 63 , 215 P. 1067 ; Oklahoma Produce Co. v. Cotton Products Co., 111 Okla. 257 , 239 P. 656 ; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107 ; Indian Refining Co. v. Marcrum (Ala.) 88 So. 445 ; Miller v. Thomas, 200 Ill.

1934“So we hold that this issue was not properly presented by the pleadings or raised in the trial court to authorize this court to here review the same.” Supporting the rule above announced are the following recent cases: Citizens’ Bank of Gans v. Mabray, 90 Okla. 63 , 215 P. 1067 ; Oklahoma Produce Co. v. Cotton Products Co., 111 Okla. 257 , 239 P. 656 ; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107 ; Indian Refining Co. v. Marcrum (Ala.) 88 So. 445 ; Miller v. Thomas, 200 Ill.

1934“So we hold that this issue was not properly presented by the pleadings or raised in the trial court to authorize this court to here review the same.” Supporting the rule above announced are the following recent cases: Citizens’ Bank of Gans v. Mabray, 90 Okla. 63 , 215 P. 1067 ; Oklahoma Produce Co. v. Cotton Products Co., 111 Okla. 257 , 239 P. 656 ; Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107 ; Indian Refining Co. v. Marcrum (Ala.) 88 So. 445 ; Miller v. Thomas, 200 Ill.

1929In the case of Chambers v. Van Wagner, 32 Okla. 774 , 123 Pac. 1117 , this court said: “It is a general rule in actions at law that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good' sense and good law.” In Herbert v. Wagg, 27 Okla. 674 , 117 Pac. 209 , in passing upon this question, this court announced the same rule, thus: “A party bringi

1928Unless waived by failure to object to the introduction of testimony, the evidence; as well as the instructions, should be confined to the pleadings. ‘“It is a general rule in actions at law that in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not *204 a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.’ * * * “It is error to admit testimony) in support' of facts not put in i

1928Unless waived by failure to object to the introduction of testimony, the evidence; as well as the instructions, should be confined to the pleadings. ‘“It is a general rule in actions at law that in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not *204 a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.’ * * * “It is error to admit testimony) in support' of facts not put in i

1928Unless waived by failure to object to the introduction of testimony, the evidence; as well as the instructions, should be confined to the pleadings. ‘“It is a general rule in actions at law that in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not *204 a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.’ * * * “It is error to admit testimony) in support' of facts not put in i

1928Unless waived by failure to object to the introduction of testimony, the evidence; as well as the instructions, should be confined to the pleadings. ‘“It is a general rule in actions at law that in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from what he has previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not *204 a mere arbitrary rule, but is one founded on good sense and good law.’ * * * “It is error to admit testimony) in support' of facts not put in i

1927As to this being a fatal variance between the pleadings and the proof, and a departure from th’e allegations of plaintiff’s reply, defendants cite Chambers v. Van Wagner. 32 Okla. 774 , 123 Pac. 1118 , where the following question from 22 Pl. & Pr. 527, is adopted as the first syllabus: “It is a general rule, in actions at law, that, in order to enable plaintiff to recover or defendant to succeed in his defense, what is proved or that of which proof is offered by the party on whom lies the onus probandi must not vary from .what he had previously alleged in his pleadings; and this is not a mere