COMMERCIAL NAT'L BANK v. TRUMBLY

Annotate this Case

COMMERCIAL NAT'L BANK v. TRUMBLY
1916 OK 239
155 P. 874
56 Okla. 173
Case Number: 6651
Decided: 02/29/1916
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK
v.
TRUMBLY.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Presentation Below--Motion for New Trial. Errors occurring during the trial will not be entertained here unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such alleged errors, has first been presented to the trial court, overruled by him, this ruling excepted to, and such ruling afterwards assigned as error in the Supreme Court.

Horsley, Peters & Walton, for plaintiff in error.
J. A. Farrell, for defendant in error.

MATHEWS, C.

¶1 This action was instituted against the administrator of the maker of a promissory note for the collection of said note. The cause was tried to the court, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant, and the case is here upon petition in error. It appears from the record that no motion for a new trial was filed in the trial court. The entire assignment of errors relate to errors alleged to have been committed during the trial, with the exception of the first assignment of error in overruling plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's answer. Plaintiff in error expressly waives his first assignment of error. We have also examined defendant's answer, and find no error in overruling the demurrer to same. A long and unbroken line of decisions from this court holds that error occurring during the trial will not be entertained here, unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such alleged errors, has first been presented to the trial court, overruled by him, this ruling excepted to, and such ruling afterwards assigned as error in the Supreme court. Kee v. Park et al., 32 Okla. 302, 122 P. 712; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Leake, 34 Okla. 77, 123 P. 1125; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Winsley, 39 Okla. 374, 135 P. 19; O'Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141; Avery v. Hays, 44 Okla. 71, 144 P. 624; Carlisle v. Dawson, 52 Okla. 115, 152 P. 825. We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

¶2 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.