122 P. 166 | Okla. | 1912
This case is in all particulars the same as No. 1,493,Stevens, Kennerly Spragins Co. v. A. M. Dulaney and H. M.Dulaney, infra,
"Very liberal rules of construction should be applied to pleadings in a justice of the peace court, and technical objections will not be allowed to reverse the judgment where it is apparent from an examination of the entire record that no substantial right of the party raising the objection could have been affected by the ruling, and where a reversal on that ground would tend to defeat the ends of justice." (Holden v.Lynn,
A case more specifically in point is Kaub v. Mitchell et al.,
"No question was raised in the justice's court as to the sufficiency of this bill of particulars. Hence, if, by a very liberal construction, said bill can be construed to state a cause of action, neither the district court nor this court should disturb the judgment founded thereon. We think the bill of particulars, if construed liberally, states a cause of action. It must be admitted that the cause of action is not very intelligently or intelligibly stated; but the proper place to raise the question of the sufficiency of the bill of particulars was in the justice's court."
To the same effect is Gosett v. Patten,
"We do not think, however, that the bill of particulars is fatally defective in these respects, and especially not after verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff; and, when the question is raised for the first time in the Supreme Court, it will be presumed that what was defectively stated in the bill of particulars was sufficiently proved on the trial, and, as all lawyers know, strict formal pleadings are not required in a justice's court."
The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and DUNN, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.