Community National Bank of Warr Acres v. Beasler

1974 OK 37, 520 P.2d 813
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 19, 1974
Docket46800
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 1974 OK 37 (Community National Bank of Warr Acres v. Beasler) 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
Community National Bank of Warr Acres v. Beasler, 1974 OK 37, 520 P.2d 813 (Okla. 1974).

Opinion

LAVENDER, Justice:

Appellants as plaintiffs sued appellee to replevy a motor vehicle. Issuance of the *814 writ was denied at a show cause hearing. Because defendant was allowed to retain possession of the chattel, plaintiffs then sought an order requiring defendant to furnish redelivery bond, which order was denied.

Appellant alleges in a petition in error that the trial judge certified for interlocutory appeal a question:

“Is the defendant in a replevin action required to post a redelivery bond in compliance with 12 O.S.1577 at the termination of a show cause hearing in the defendants favor that allows him to retain possession of the personal property that ought to be replevied ?”

The petition in error will be treated as a petition for certiorari, which is the appropriate pleading under Civil Appeals Rule 1.51(b).

The interlocutory review contemplated by the statute 12 O.S.1971 § 952(b)(3) encompasses appellate review of interlocutory orders which affect a substantial part of the merits of the controversy. Appellants here can only be aggrieved by the order denying their motion to compel defendant to post a redelivery bond. They are not aggrieved by an order which affects a substantial part of the merits of the controversy.

Also, assuming, arguendo, that requirement of a redelivery bond by defendant would be in this circumstance appropriate, appellate review of an interlocutory order to that effect would not serve to “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,” Civil Appeals Rule 1.50. Neither the Legislature nor the rules of this court provide for interlocutory review of the type order involved here.

Certiorari is denied. On motion by ap-pellees the petition in error, treated as a petition for certiorari, is dismissed and the cause remanded to the trial court with direction to proceed in the cause.

DAVISON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and IRWIN, BERRY, HODGES and SIMMS, JJ., concur. BARNES, J., dissents.

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

Related

Sommer v. Sommer
1997 OK 123 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1997)
Pierson v. Canupp
754 P.2d 548 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1988)
Roark v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co.
731 P.2d 389 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1987)
Willoughby v. City of Oklahoma City
706 P.2d 883 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1985)
White v. Wensauer
1985 OK 26 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1985)
McCullough v. Cities Service Co.
676 P.2d 833 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1974 OK 37, 520 P.2d 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/community-national-bank-of-warr-acres-v-beasler-okla-1974.