Board of Commissioners of D County v. F. H. Wright

Oklahoma Supreme Court1899-02-11

8 Okla. 190

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of the district court is affirmed because the appellate record fails to affirmatively show that it contains all trial evidence, preventing appellate review of whether the trial court's findings and judgment were contrary to the evidence.

F. H. Wright obtained a judgment against the Board of County Commissioners of D County for $932.72 on county warrants. The board defended by arguing the warrants were void because they created indebtedness exceeding the statutory limit of 1 percent of the county's assessed taxable property value. The case proceeded to trial in Canadian County following a change of venue agreed to by both parties.

On appeal, the court found a critical defect in the record presented for review. Although the district judge's certificate stated that the case-made contained all evidence from the trial, the case-made itself did not affirmatively demonstrate that all evidence was included. The court emphasized that a judge's certificate alone is insufficient; the record must itself clearly show completeness of the evidence before appellate review can proceed on evidentiary questions.

Because the appellate record was incomplete, the court could not determine whether the trial court's findings and judgment were contrary to the evidence. Under these circumstances, all presumptions favor the trial court's decision. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed based on the incomplete record.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Requirements for a complete appellate record when evidence-based questions are presented
Sufficiency of a district judge's certificate that a case-made contains all evidence
Standard of review when appellate record is incomplete
Validity of county warrants exceeding statutory indebtedness limits

Procedural posture

The case came before the appellate court on appeal from a district court judgment in Canadian County, which had exercised jurisdiction following a change of venue from D County.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Opinion of the court by

Hainer, J.:

This case comes here on appeal from the-district court of Canadian county, on what purports to-be a case-made. It appears from the record that F. H.. Wright, the defendant in error, recovered a judgment against the board of county (-commissioners of D county for $932.72, in a suit upon county warrants. The board of county commissioners of D county, defendant in the-court below, in its answer ¡to the plaintiff’s petition, set up as a defense, that the warrants sued upon wereviod, because at the time the debts were incurred and the warrants issued, «they created an indebtedness beyond 1 per ¡cent, of the value of the taxable property in D county, as shown by the last assessment for territorial and county taxes previous to- the incurring of such indebtedness. To this answer the plaintiff filed a ■reply containing a general denial. Upon the issues thus framed the case was tried by the court in Canadian county on a change of venue from D county, by agreement of the parties. The questions (presented to this court for review involve a consideration of all the evidence introduced uponthe trial of this case. The record tin this case does not show that all the evidence was-preserved and brought to this court. In fact, after an inspection of the -record, it is impossible to state what evidence was -introduced and considered by the «court. It is true that the certificate, of the district judge contains a recitation that the case-made contains all the pleadings, motions, orders, evidence, etc., in the case,, but that is not -sufficient. The case-made itself must affirmatively show that it includes all the evidence, before it can -be reviewed by this court. Where the ques tions presented to this court for review by the plaintiff in error depend upon the consideration of the evidence introduced upon the trial in theicourt below, the case-made must contain all the evidence, and this must affirm.atively appear in the case-made itself. A mere < statement in the certificate of the district judge that it contains all the evidence is wholly insufficient. (Tootle v. Turner, [Kan. App.] 54 Pac. 1036; Sanford v. Weeks, 50 Kan. 336, 31 Pac. 1087; Town Co. v. Rittenhouse, [Kan. Sup.] 30 Pac. 181; Eddy v. Weaver, 37 Kan. 540, 15 Pac. 492.)

The certificate of the district judge to a case-made, imports the truthfulness of the preceding statements in the case, but nothing more, and we must ascertain from the statements in the •case-made itself whether or not all the evidence is preserved in the record. (Brown v. Johnson, 14 Kan. 377; Wilson v. Willey [Kan. App.] 42 Pac. 1092; Sill v. Bank, [Kan. Sup.] 22 Pac. 324.)

In the absence of a complete record, all the presumptions are in favor of the correctness of the findings and judgment of the trial court. As the record brought here to this court for review fails to show that it includes all the evidence upon which the findings and judgment of the district court were based, we are therefore unable to state that they are contrary- to the evidence upon the issues involved in the trial of said cause. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.

Tarsney, J., having presided in the court below, and Burford, C. J., having been of counsel, not sitting; all <of the other Justices concurring.