« НазадПродовжити »
THIS IS A KEY-NUMBER INDEX
It Supplements the Decennial Digest, the Key-Number Series and
Prior Reporter Volume Index-Digests
(B) Objections and Motions, and Rulings
<> 193(9) (Okl.) Sufficiency of petition to
state cause of action may be questioned for
first time on appeal.-Gourley v. Northwestern
Nat. Life Ins. Co., 645.
Q- 193 (9) (Uk!.) Insufficiency of petition to
support verdict may be first raised on appeal,—
Commercial Inv. Trust v. Ferguson, 925.
&=> 195 (Cal.App.) Party not asking leave to
amend cannot complain of denial of leave.-Si-
mons v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 425.
&= 197(3) (Okl.) Unless called to attention of
court below, judgment, not reversed for slight
variance not misleading.—Chambers v. Wil-
&=209 (2) (Wash.) Question not raised be-
low not considered on appeal.-Parsons v.
&=2|6(I) (Kan.) Error cannot be predicated
on refusal to give instruction unless requested.
—Turman v. Solvay Process Co., 510,
&=216(2) (Cal.App.) Objection that instruc-
tion incomplete held too late on appeal.—Brown
v. Beck, 14.
&=216 (3) (Kan.) Instruction as to degree of
preponderance of evidence, if error, held harm-
less.-Liberal Coal & Mining Co. v. McAlester
Fuel Co., 178.
3-219 (2) (Cal.App.) Objection to form of
findings made for first time on appeal not
considered.—Dixon v. Norman, 321.
&=2219 (2) (Okl.) Refusal of request for spe-
cial findings and conclusions held preserved
for review.—Grant v. Mathis, 331.
&=237 (2) (Okl.) Evidence of attorney's fees
not reversible error in view of charge and ver-
dict.–Municipal Excavator Co. v. Walters,
&=237(5) (Okl.) Sufficiency of evidence not
reviewable unless called to attention of trial
court.—State v. Wells, 341. -
&=248 (Okl.) Errors not excepted to waived.
—Byers v. Burton, 476.
&=263(1) (Okl.) Parties concluded on appeal
by failure to take exceptions to instructions,—
Simpson v. Plummer, 342.
*:::::) (Okl.) Instructions will not be
considered unless exceptions saved below.—
Commercial Inv. Trust v. Ferguson, 925.
<>273 (6) (Utah) Instructions correct in part
held not reviewable on exception to whole.—Mc-
Laughlin v. Chief Consol. Mining Co., 726.
(D) Motions for New Trial.
&=289 (Kan.) Errors in admission of evi-
dence must be presented in motion for new
trial.-Bennett v. Davis, 1031.
<>301 (Okl.) Overruling demurrer held not
reviewable, unless presented in motion for new
trial.—Commercial Inv. Trust v. Ferguson, 925.
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
<>878 (1) (Ariz.) Complaint as to judgment
in appellee's brief not considered where appel-
lee did not appeal.-Barth v. A. & B. Schuster
3>878 (4) (Okl.) Defendant in error may
raise questions of sufficiency of petition for
first time on appeal to invoke aid of harmless
error doctrine.—Gourley v. Northwestern Nat.
Life Ins. Co., 645.
<=878 (6) (Or.) Party not appealing cannot
insist on more favorable decree.—Dolph v. Len-
non's, Inc., 161.
3=882 (2) (Cal.App.) Plaintiff held bound by
his claim as to venue in the trial court.—Reid
v. Kerr, 688.
&=882(8) (Okl.) Introduction of records,
facts in which are shown by sworn petition of
opponent, not error.—Kirk W. McClendon, 949.
(D) Amendments, Additional Proofs, and
Trial of Cause Anew.
6-897 (Idaho) New cause of action cannot be
o in trial de novo.—Obermeyer v. Ken-
&=907(2) (Cal.App.) Presumed that evidence
sustained finding where evidence not brought
up.–Reid v. Kerr, 688.
&=907(2) (Kan.) In absence of evidence and
special findings, determination of jury on par-
ticular phase assumed harmonious with gen-
eral verdict.—Stevens v. Keegan, 1050.
<>907 (3) (Cal.App.) On appeal on judgment
roll alone presumed that failure to find on new
matter in answer not improper—Reid v. Kerr,
G-928(1) (Colo.) Abstract showing that in-
structions not included therein were given rais-
es presumption that jury were properly and
fully instructed.—Hall v. Farmers' Bank of
&=928(4) (Kan.) Instructions presumed cor-
rect and complete in absence of contrary show-
ing.—Wilson v. Doolittle, 508.
&=930(1) (Utah) Evidence viewed most fav-
orably to appellee.—McLaughlin v. Chief Con-
sol. Mining Co., 726.
<>930 (4) (Utah) Adoption of theory sup-
ported by evidence assumed.—McLaughlin v.
Chief Consol. Mining Co., 726.
<>931 (1) (Cal.App.) Evidence supporting
finding on conflicting evidence presumed true.
—Teresi v. Cavala, 686.
<>931 (1) (Colo.) Presumptions are in favor
of judgment on general finding.—Drovers' Nat.
Bank v. Denver Live Stock Exchange, 402.
C-93 l (I) (Kan.) Evidence shown disbelieved.
below disregarded.—Taylor v. Walker, 518.
Evidence of prevailing party regarded in most
&=931 (4) (Colo.) After general finding, con-
sistent specific finding warranted by evidence
presumed.—Greek Catholic Church of Trans-
figuration of Christ v. Hunau, 981.
&=931 (6) (Colo.) Presumption that court ad-
mitted only competent evidence.—Nelson v.
&=>933(1) (Okl.) Ruling of court on motion
for new trial presumed correct.—Eldred v.
Pittsburg County Ry. Co., 351.
&=>934(3) (Utah) Presumption that com-
plaint, after parts thereof stricken out, author-
ized court to enter default judgment.—Taylor
v. Guaranty Mortg. Co., 1067.
(F) Discretion of Lover Court.
&=>955 (Okl.) Appointment of receiver pen-
dente lite not reversed, in absence of clear
abuse of discretion.—Moran v. Park, 589.
&=959(1), (Idaho) Granting or refusing
amendments within discretion of trial court
and not disturbed unless abuse of discretion
appears.-Swanson v. Olsen, 407.
&=959(1) (Okl.) Allowance or refusal of
amendments not disturbed in absence of show-
ing of prejudice.—Barnett v. AEtna Explosives
&=>970 (3) (Or.) Order of proof in discretion
of trial court, not reviewable except for abuse.
—Sather v. Giaconi, 740.
&=977 (3) (Okl.) Order granting new trial not
reversed, unless error of law clearly shown.—
Eldred v. Pittsburg County Ry. Co., 351.
Strong showing of error necessary for rever-
sal of order granting new trial.—Id.
<>977 (5) (Idaho) Order denying new trial
should be reversed only on clear showing of
abuse of discretion.—Caravelis v. Cacavas, 110.
&=978 (I) (Wash.) Granting of a new trial
not disturbed, where oral instruction of trial
court may have misled jury.—Babcock v. M. &
M. Const. Co., 803.
<>978 (3) (Kan.) Granting new trial because
jury misapprehended issues and failed to fol-
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am.Dig. Key-No.Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
&=>1009 (4) (Okl.) Findings in equity case not
reversed unless clearly against evidence.—Byers
v. Burton, 476.
&= 1009(4) (Okl.) Judgment in equity not re-
versed unless clearly against weight of evi-
dence.—Norris v. American Vacuum Syringe
&=1009(4) (Okl.) Supreme Court will not re-
verse judgment in equitable case unless clearly
against weight of evidence.—Parks v. De Ar-
&= 1009 (4) (Okl.), Judgment not set aside in
equitable action unless clearly against evidence.
—Davis v. Littlefield, 830,
&=>1009 (4) (Okl.) Judgment in equity case not
reversed for insufficiency of evidence unless
clearly against weight.—Wright v. Anstine, 928.
&= 1009 (4) (Okl.) Fact findings in equity case
will not be disturbed, unless clearly against
weight of evidence.—Campbell v. Campbell, 955.
&= 1010 (!). Finding sustained by evidence not
—(Cal.App.) Gimeno v. Martin, 1076;
(Colo.) Koch v. Knuth, 500.
&=>1010(1) (Colo.) Conclusions of trial court
not disturbed where supported by evidence.—
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Haru Fukushima,
<>| 0 || 0 (I) (N.M.) Findings not supported by
substantial evidence not upheld.—Hoskins v.
&= 1010 (I) (Or.) Findings supported by evi-
dence and conclusions therefrom conclusive
against appellant-Van Hee v. Rickman, 143.
&= [010(1) (Or.) Findings of fact, like yer-
dict, cannot be set aside if material allegations
are supported by evidence.—Maeder Steel Prod-
ucts Co. v. Zanello, 155.
Fact findings set aside only when clearly un-
supported by evidence.—Id.
<>1010(1) (Utah) Court held bound by find-
ing that buyer did not waive seller's breach of
contract.—Eagle Lumber Co. v. Burton Lum-
ber Co., 1069.
Court held bound by finding of seller's breach
of contract of sale.—Id.
<> 10; I (1) Trial court's findings on conflict-
ing evidence will not be disturbed.
—(Ariz.) Shelton v. Culley, 229;
(Kan.) Gray v. Hedge, 259;
(Okl.) Nunley v. Loftis, 841.
<>10s I (1) (Cal.App.) Question of conflict in
evidence for trial court.—Reid v. Robinson, 676.
Conclusions of court on conflicting evidence
not disturbed on appeal.—Id.
&= 10 || (1) (Cal.App.) Finding on conflicting
evidence that land sale contract was accepted
by vendee conclusive.—Teresi v. Cavala, 686.
&=> 1 0 12(s) (Wash.) Appellate Court will not
disturb findings of trial court unless evidence
preponderates against them.—Embola v. Tup-
&= 1024 ( ) (Okl.) Order making request for
findings part of case-made, supported by com-
petent evidence not disturbed.—Grant v. Ma-
(H) Harmless Error.
&= 1026 (Okl.) Nonprejudicial errors not
ground for reversal.--Twin States Oil Co. v.
Westerly Oil Co., S39.
<= 1027 (Okl.) Decision of law harmless if
application of correct law would have cast
equal burden on adverse parties.—Gourley v.
Northwestern Nat. Life | Co., 645.
&= 1033(4) (Qr.) Submission of question
whether injured workman elected to take under
Compensation Act held not reversible error.—
Hicks v. Peninsula Lumber Co., 133; Senter
v. Peninsula Lumber Co., 139.
&= 1036(4) (Okl.) Substitution of assignee as
plaintiff held harmless error.—Automobile Ins.
Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Lewis, 639.
&= 1039(11) (Kan.) Departure in pleadings
immaterial, unless substantial prejudice has re-