Folsom v. Billy

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Folsom v. Billy, 189 P. 188 (Okla. 1920)
78 Okla. 146; 1920 OK 166; 1920 Okla. LEXIS 331
Owen, Rainey, Pitchford, Meneill, Higgins, Bailey

Folsom v. Billy

Opinion of the Court

OWEN, C. J.

It appears on motion to dismiss this appeal that judgment was rendered for restitution of the premises described in the petition, and from a judgment overruling motion for new trial this appeal was prose cuted by transcript, without bill of exceptions or case-made.

Motions presented to the trial court, and the rulings thereon, are not properly part of the record, and can only be preserved and presented for review on appeal by incorporating same in a bill of exceptions or case-made. Lawton Grain Co. v. Brunswig, 72 Oklahoma, 179 Pac. 465; Williams v. Kelly, 71 Oklahoma, 176 Pac. 204; Putnam v. Western Bank & Supply Co., 38 Okla. 152, 132 Pac. 483.

The motion for new trial and the action of the court in overruling same being no part of the record proper, the assignment that the court erred in overruling the motion cannot be presented to this court by transcript of record. Williams v. Kelly, supra.

The motion will be sustained and the appeal dismissed.

RAINEY, PITCHFORD, MeNEILL, HIGGINS, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
FOLSOM Et Al. v. BILLY
Cited By
10 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
(Syllabus by the Court.) 1. Appeal and Error — Record—Motions— Exceptions — Review. Motions presented to the trial court, the rulings thereon, and the exceptions thereto are not properly part of the record, and can only be preserved and presented for review on appeal by incorporating same in a bill of exceptions or case-made. 2. Same — Record Proper — Motion for New Trial. A motion for new trial and the action of the court in overruling the same being no part of the record proper, the assignment that the court erred in overruling the motion cannot be presented to this court by transcript of the record.