Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Co. v. Roberts

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Co. v. Roberts

1914 OK 8, 137 P. 1179, 40 Okla. 304, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 13

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 13, 1914

Docket3468

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1914 OK 8 (Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Co. v. Roberts) 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

Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Co. v. Roberts, 1914 OK 8, 137 P. 1179, 40 Okla. 304, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 13 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

LOOFBOURROW, J.

The defendants in error, plaintiffs below, filed their amended petition in the district court of Tillman county on the 17th day of September, 1910. Thereafter each of the defendants filed a sepárate motion to dismiss said case for the reason “that the court has no jurisdiction of 'the person of said defendant.” The defendant the Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Company also filed a separate motion to quash the summons. The court, on the 7th day of- September, 1911, .overruled “each and all of the said motions,” to which ruling 'of the court the defendants respectively excepted, and from such order overruling said motions to dismiss defendants prosecute this appeal, assigning as error “that the court erred in overruling the motions of the plaintiffs in error to dismiss the suit.” The case is now before this court on-’the motion of defendants in error to dismiss the appeal “for the reason that no final judgment appears to have been entered in said cause, and that said .order and orders of said district court assigned as error in said petition in error are not' appealable to this court, that they are not final, and are not subject to review herein in the absence of any final order or judgment of the said district court duly entered and brought to this court for review, as provided by law.”

This case is still pending in the court below, and, until a final judgment or disposition of the same is made in that court, the cause is not reviewable in this court. See Brown v. Kimble, 5 Kan. 81; Edenfield v. Barnhart, 5 Kan. 225; Simpson v. Stein, 43 Kan. 35, 22 Pac. 1020; Spaulding v. Polley, 28 Okla. 764, 115 Pac. 864; Snyder v. Elliott, 26 Okla. 856, 110 Pac. 784; Simpson v. Kirschbaum, etc., 43 Kan. 36, 22 Pac. 1018; Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124; Simpson v. Rothschild, 43 Kan. 33, 22 Pac. 1019; Kansas Rolling Mill Co. v. Bovard, 34 Kan. 21, 7 Pac. 622; Reynolds v. Packers’ Nat. Bank, 66 Kan. 461, 71 Pac. 847. The appeal is.therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

LOOFBOURROW, J.

The defendants in error, plaintiffs below, filed their amended petition in the district court of Tillman county on the 17th day of September, 1910. Thereafter each of the defendants filed a sepárate motion to dismiss said case for the reason “that the court has no jurisdiction of 'the person of said defendant.” The defendant the Consolidated Alfalfa Milling Company also filed a separate motion to quash the summons. The court, on the 7th day of- September, 1911, .overruled “each and all of the said motions,” to which ruling 'of the court the defendants respectively excepted, and from such order overruling said motions to dismiss defendants prosecute this appeal, assigning as error “that the court erred in overruling the motions of the plaintiffs in error to dismiss the suit.” The case is now before this court on-’the motion of defendants in error to dismiss the appeal “for the reason that no final judgment appears to have been entered in said cause, and that said .order and orders of said district court assigned as error in said petition in error are not' appealable to this court, that they are not final, and are not subject to review herein in the absence of any final order or judgment of the said district court duly entered and brought to this court for review, as provided by law.”

This case is still pending in the court below, and, until a final judgment or disposition of the same is made in that court, the cause is not reviewable in this court. See Brown v. Kimble, 5 Kan. 81; Edenfield v. Barnhart, 5 Kan. 225; Simpson v. Stein, 43 Kan. 35, 22 Pac. 1020; Spaulding v. Polley, 28 Okla. 764, 115 Pac. 864; Snyder v. Elliott, 26 Okla. 856, 110 Pac. 784; Simpson v. Kirschbaum, etc., 43 Kan. 36, 22 Pac. 1018; Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124; Simpson v. Rothschild, 43 Kan. 33, 22 Pac. 1019; Kansas Rolling Mill Co. v. Bovard, 34 Kan. 21, 7 Pac. 622; Reynolds v. Packers’ Nat. Bank, 66 Kan. 461, 71 Pac. 847. The appeal is.therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 8, 137 P. 1179, 40 Okla. 304, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-alfalfa-milling-co-v-roberts-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack