Title: CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, & PAC. RY. v. DAVIS
Citation: 101 P. 111 8, 1909 OK 321
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 12, 1909

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND, &amp; PAC. RY. v. DAVIS1909 OK 321101 P. 1118Case Number: ___Decided: 05/12/1909Supreme Court of Oklahoma
CHICAGO, R. I. &amp; P. RY. CO.v.DAVIS.
SYLLABUS
An assignment of error in this court to the effect that the trial court erred 
in overruling the motion for a new trial will bring before this court for review 
every exception, saved by the complaining party during the progress of the 
trial, that was presented to the court below by the motion for a new trial.
Error from District Court, Comanche County; F. E. Gillette, Judge.
Action by D. E. Davis against the Chicago, Rock Island &amp; Pacific Railway 
Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
Williams, J., dissenting.
W. C. Stevens, C. O. Blake, H. B. Low, and T. R. Beman, for plaintiff in 
error.
B. M. Parmenter, C. M. Myers, and C. O. Clark, for defendant in error.
KANE, C. J.
This case, in so far as the questions of substantive law involved are 
concerned, is identical with C., R. I. &amp; P Ry. Co. v. Johnson, decided at 
this term of court, 
Counsel for defendant in error attacks the record in this court upon two 
grounds: (1) The case-made contains no recital or averment that it contains all 
the evidence submitted at the trial of the cause; and (2) that there are no 
errors specifically assigned. There seems to be no ground of complaint as to the 
first proposition. The case-made, on page 131, contains the following statement: 
"And the foregoing contains true and correct copies of all the pleadings in said 
cause, and a true, full, complete, and correct statement and recital of all of 
the evidence offered and introduced," etc.
The specifications of error are as follows: First, the petition in said cause 
does not state a cause of action against said plaintiff in error; second, the 
court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial in the said cause. In 
Kellogg v. School District, 13 
Okl. 285, 74 P. 110, it was held that "an assignment of error in this court, to the 
effect that the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial, will 
bring before this court for review every exception saved by the complaining 
party during the progress of the trial."
We think the record and assignment of errors are sufficient to present the 
question upon which this case is decided. All the Justices concur, except 
WILLIAMS, J., who dissents.