Case ID: okla_54/html/0269-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DEVEREUX, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BAUGH v. HUDSON et al.
    
    No. 5262.
    Opinion Filed November 16, 1915.
    Rehearing Denied December 21. 1915.
    (153 Pac. 289.)
    1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Presentation Below — Motion for New Trial. A motion for a new trial is necessary to give this court jurisdiction to review errors occurring at the trial of a case, where ■a final judgment has been rendered.
    
      %. SAME — Record — Transcript — Presentation for Review — Dismissal. Where, in an application for an injunction pending the action, the court hears evidence and renders a final judgment dismissing the, actioii, and no motion is filed for a new trial, and there is no certificate of the clerh, certifying the record as a transcript, this court has no jurisdiction to consider any of the alleged errors, and the appeal will be dismissed.
    (Syllabus by Devereux, C.)
    
      
      Error from District Court, McIntosh County; Presley B. Cole, Judge.
    
    Action by Charles J. Baugh against William H. Hudson and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
    Dismissed.
    The cause of action in this case was for the possession of certain land described in the petition. Plaintiff also asked that during the pendency of the action the defendants be restrained from interfering with the peaceable and exclusive possession of the plaintiff, and from developing the same for oil and gas, and that at the final hearing the defendants be enjoined from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff under a certain oil and gas lease set out in the petition. The case was heard upon an application for a preliminary injunction, and much evidence^ both oral and by way of affidavit, was introduced. On the hearing of the application, the court rendered judgment refusing the preliminary injunction, refusing the plaintiff any relief, and dismissing the action, which makes it a final judgment. The plaintiff brings the case to this court by petition in error and case-m'ade, but there is' no motion for a new trial in the record, nor is it certified to by the clerk, so as to constitute a transcript.
    
      B. B. Blakeney and J. H. Maxey, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
    
      William M. Matthews, for defendants in error.
    
      Thomas H. Owen and Joseph C. Stone, amici curiae.
    
   Opinion by

DEVEREUX, C.

(after stating the facts as above). The judgment in this case is a final judgment, because it dismisses the action, and there is no motion for a new trial, nor is there any. certificate of the clerk which will enable us to review the record as a transcript. There is therefore nothing before this court. Stanard v. Sampson, 23 Okla. 13, 99 Pac. 796; Boyd v. Bryan, 11 Okla. 56, 65 Pac. 940; Bradford v. Brennan, 15 Okla. 47, 78 Pac. 387; Ahren-Ott Mfg. Co. v. Condon, 23 Okla. 365, 100 Pac. 556.

As there is no certificate of the clerk authenticating' this as a transcript, this court is without jurisdiction to consider any errors which might appear on the face of the record .

We therefore recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.