Title: MICHELSON v. LABOVITZ
Citation: 122 Okla. 109, 1926 OK 994, 251 P. 60 8
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: December 14, 1926

MICHELSON v. LABOVITZ Annotate this Case MICHELSON v. LABOVITZ 1926 OK 994 251 P. 608 122 Okla. 109 Case Number: 17439 Decided: 12/14/1926 Supreme Court of Oklahoma MICHELSON et al. v. LABOVITZ Syllabus ¶0 Appeal and Error--Requisite Contents of Record--Order Overruling Motion for New Trial. Where the record does not contain an order of the court overruling a motion for new trial, the mere recital in the clerk's minutes of the proceedings in the trial court that a motion for a new trial was in fact overruled and exceptions allowed is insufficient in the absence of such order, and an appeal therefrom presents nothing to this court for review. Error from County Court, Seminole County; Thomas I. Cummings, Judge. Action between A. Michelson et al. and Mary Labovitz. From the judgment, the former bring error. Dismissed. Hutson, Smith & Franklin, for plaintiffs in error. Hill & Criswell and A. M. Fowler, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. ¶1 This cause was tried in the county court of Seminole county before a jury. A verdict was rendered by the jury, and motion for a new trial filed. The only record of any action taken by the trial court on the motion for new trial is the the minutes of the court clerk, as follows: "January 16, 1926. "Motion for new trial overruled. Defendant excepts and gives notice in open court of his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma, and asks the court to fix supersedeas bond."