Armstrong v. White

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Armstrong v. White

1914 OK 399, 143 P. 329, 43 Okla. 639, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 584

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 1, 1914

Docket6490

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK 399 (Armstrong v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. White, 1914 OK 399, 143 P. 329, 43 Okla. 639, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 584 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

RIDDLE, J.

This cause comes on for hearing upon a motion of defendant in error to dismiss the proceeding in this court, for the reason, among others, that the judgment rendered herein was a joint judgment against three defendants, to wit, C. L. Armstrong, T. M. Louies, and James Barnett; that one of defendants in said cause, Barnett, refused to join in the proceeding in this court as a party plaintiff in error, and has served written notice on all the other parties and their attorneys to that effect. Plaintiffs in error have failed to make said Barnett a party defendant in error, and it appears, from the motion and record filed in this court, that he is not now a party to the proceeding in this court. The record also fails to show that the case-made was served upon him. It has been held many times by this court that all parties to a joint judgment, whose rights would be affected adversely by a reversal, must either be made parties plaintiff or parties defendant in error in order to give this court jurisdiction. Where a party to a joint judgment refuses to be made a party plaintiff in error, in order to bring the proceeding to this court and to confer jurisdiction upon this court to determine the case upon its merits, he should, be made a party defendant, and the case-made served upon him in the manner provided by statute. Otherwise this court will have no jurisdiction to determine the controversy on its merits.

For the foregoing reasons, the proceeding in this court is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RIDDLE, J.

This cause comes on for hearing upon a motion of defendant in error to dismiss the proceeding in this court, for the reason, among others, that the judgment rendered herein was a joint judgment against three defendants, to wit, C. L. Armstrong, T. M. Louies, and James Barnett; that one of defendants in said cause, Barnett, refused to join in the proceeding in this court as a party plaintiff in error, and has served written notice on all the other parties and their attorneys to that effect. Plaintiffs in error have failed to make said Barnett a party defendant in error, and it appears, from the motion and record filed in this court, that he is not now a party to the proceeding in this court. The record also fails to show that the case-made was served upon him. It has been held many times by this court that all parties to a joint judgment, whose rights would be affected adversely by a reversal, must either be made parties plaintiff or parties defendant in error in order to give this court jurisdiction. Where a party to a joint judgment refuses to be made a party plaintiff in error, in order to bring the proceeding to this court and to confer jurisdiction upon this court to determine the case upon its merits, he should, be made a party defendant, and the case-made served upon him in the manner provided by statute. Otherwise this court will have no jurisdiction to determine the controversy on its merits.

For the foregoing reasons, the proceeding in this court is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 399, 143 P. 329, 43 Okla. 639, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-white-okla-1914.