Title: GRIGGS v. MID-CONTINENT MOTOR SECS. CO.
Citation: 1922 OK 350, 211 P. 49 4, 88 Okla. 23
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 12, 1922

GRIGGS v. MID-CONTINENT MOTOR SECS. CO. Annotate this Case GRIGGS v. MID-CONTINENT MOTOR SECS. CO. 1922 OK 350 211 P. 494 88 Okla. 23 Case Number: 13475 Decided: 12/12/1922 Supreme Court of Oklahoma GRIGGS et al. v. MID-CONTINENT MOTOR SECURITIES CO. Syllabus ¶0 Appeal and Error--Record--Matters not Part of Record Proper. It is well settled that motions and proceedings which are not part of the record proper can only be presented for review by incorporating them into a case-made, or by preserving them by bill of exceptions and embracing them in the transcript. Error from District Court, Tulsa County; Valjean Biddison, Judge. Action between the Mid-Continent Motor Securities Company and Franklin H. Griggs et al. Motion to vacate order appointing a receiver denied, and the latter bring error. Motion to dismiss appeal sustained. Franklin H. Griggs and F. B. Lathrop, for plaintiff in error. Geo. E. Reeves, for defendant in error. KANE, J. ¶1 This is a proceeding in error prosecuted for the purpose of reviewing the action of the trial court in denying a motion to vacate an order appointing a receiver. ¶2 The defendant in error moves the court to dismiss the appeal upon the ground, among others, that the plaintiffs in error failed to attach to their petition in error a case-made or bill of exceptions preserving and making a part of the record the motion to vacate the appointment of a receiver, or the order of the trial court overruling or denying the same, or exceptions taken thereto, or the testimony or affidavits introduced in support thereof, upon which the court acted. ¶3 The motion to dismiss seems to be well taken. ¶4 It is well settled that motions and proceedings which are not part of the record proper can only be presented for review by incorporating them into a case-made, or by preserving them by bill of exceptions and embracing them in the transcript. Frank Menten v. Otto A. Shuttee et al., 11 Okla. 381 , 67 P. 478.