Court Opinion

ID: 9545007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:04:33.079861+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:52.590387
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
In her petition for rehearing, the plaintiff reasserts that the record of the proceedings before the Referee was made a part of the record herein at a hearing on the motion for new trial held in July, 1961, and subsequent to the entry of the judgment on the accounting feature, by stipulation of the parties. Assuming, but without deciding, that the proceedings had before the Referee did become a part of the record by stipulation of the parties and the order of the assigned judge at that time, still the same could not have been taken into consideration in passing on the motion for new trial.
The function of a motion for new trial is to open judicial inquiry into errors occurring during the conduct of the trial proceedings. Its office is to invoke the power of a trial court to correct and cure its own errors. See Bishop’s Restaurants, Inc., of Tulsa v. Whomble, Okl., 355 P.2d 560, 561; Durham v. Sharum, 203 Okl. 426, 222 P.2d 1029; Burgin v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corporation, 188 Okl. 645, 112 P.2d 802; and Owen v. District Court of Oklahoma County, 43 Okl. 442, 143 P. 17.
Upon approval of the report of the Referee and the entering of the judgment by the trial court on the accounting feature, the trial proceedings were completed. The proceedings before the Referee were not a part of the record at that time and the assigned judge was therefore precluded from considering any matter on the hearing of the motion for new trial other than the proceedings before the trial court when the judgment was entered.
DAVISON, JOHNSON, JACKSON, IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., concur.
BLACKBIRD, C. J., and WELCH and WILLIAMS, JJ., dissent.