# Young v. Missouri, O. G. R. Co.

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · January 19, 1915 · 44 Okla. 611

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3805488

## Case

- **Full name:** Young v. Missouri, O. & G. R. Co.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 19, 1915
- **Citations:** 44 Okla. 611; 145 P. 1118; 1915 OK 37; 1915 Okla. LEXIS 710
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Rittenhouse
- **Judges:** Rittenhouse, McCain
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3805488

## Opinion text

Opinion by
RITTENHOUSE, C.
The brief of plaintiff in error complains of the admission and rejection of testimony. Rule 25 ( 38 Okla. x , 137 Pac. xi ) of this court requires that, where a party complains on account of the admission or rejection of testimony, he shall set out in his brief the full substance of the testimony to the admission or rejection of which he objects, stating specifically his objection thereto. This he has failed to do, and the assignment will therefore not be considered.
Scoville et al. v. Powell et al.,
33 Okla. 446 , 126 Pac. 730 .
Plaintiff in error assigns as error the giving of certain instructions. An examination of the record discloses that no exceptions were saved, and, if there was error, the same was waived by failure to except. Section 5003, Rev. Laws 1910;
Finch et al. v. Brown et al., 27
Okla. 217, 111 Pac. 391 ;
Straughan v. Cooper,
41 Okla. 515 , 139 Pac. 265 ;
Shuler et al. v. Hall,
42 Okla. 325 , 141 Pac. 280 .
The cause should therefore be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3805488. Public record. Not legal advice.