Cullen v. Sloniker

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Cullen v. Sloniker

1913 OK 552, 135 P. 341, 39 Okla. 353, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 506

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 23, 1913

Docket2820

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 1913 OK 552 (Cullen v. Sloniker) 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

Cullen v. Sloniker, 1913 OK 552, 135 P. 341, 39 Okla. 353, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 506 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

SHARP, C.

On the 26th day of November, 1910, in the justice of the peace court of John J. Slack, in Tulsa county, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against defendants in the sum of $56, from which said defendants attempted to prosecute error by filing in the county court of said county their petition in error, with certified transcript of the record and bill of exceptions attached, and causing summons in error to issue out of the county court. The petition in error assigned 43 grounds of error. The record being filed in the county court, the plaintiff filed therein her motion to dismiss said petition in error, alleging that the county court was without jurisdiction in the premises. The motion was sustained, exceptions allowed, and from the judgment of dismissal defendants have prosecuted this appeal.

It is argued at great length by counsel for plaintiffs in error that appeals may be prosecuted by proceedings in error, as was formerly done prior to the admission of Oklahoma into the Union as a state. To answer each and every one of the reasons urged, as contained in the brief of counsel, would serve no useful purpose, as this court has held in a number of cases that appeals from a justice of the peace court may not be thus prosecuted. Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Vanderberg, 28 Okla. 637, 115 Pac. 782, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 661, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 407; Redus v. Mattison, 30 Okla. 720, 121 Pac. 253; Patten v. Cagle, 32 Okla. 499, 122 Pac. 154; Fooshee & Brunson v. Smith, 34 Okla. 247, 124 Pac. 1070. These decisions were based upon a construction of article 7, sec. 14, of the Constitution, 'conferring upon the county court, until otherwise provided by law, jurisdiction of all cases on appeal from judgments of justices of the *355 peace in both civil and criminal cases, and providing, further, that on appeal there should be a trial de novo on questions of both law and fact. Upon authority of the decisions cited, no error was committed by the county court in dismissing defendants’ petition in error.

The judgment of the trial court should therefore be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

SHARP, C.

On the 26th day of November, 1910, in the justice of the peace court of John J. Slack, in Tulsa county, the plaintiff obtained a judgment against defendants in the sum of $56, from which said defendants attempted to prosecute error by filing in the county court of said county their petition in error, with certified transcript of the record and bill of exceptions attached, and causing summons in error to issue out of the county court. The petition in error assigned 43 grounds of error. The record being filed in the county court, the plaintiff filed therein her motion to dismiss said petition in error, alleging that the county court was without jurisdiction in the premises. The motion was sustained, exceptions allowed, and from the judgment of dismissal defendants have prosecuted this appeal.

It is argued at great length by counsel for plaintiffs in error that appeals may be prosecuted by proceedings in error, as was formerly done prior to the admission of Oklahoma into the Union as a state. To answer each and every one of the reasons urged, as contained in the brief of counsel, would serve no useful purpose, as this court has held in a number of cases that appeals from a justice of the peace court may not be thus prosecuted. Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Vanderberg, 28 Okla. 637, 115 Pac. 782, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 661, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 407; Redus v. Mattison, 30 Okla. 720, 121 Pac. 253; Patten v. Cagle, 32 Okla. 499, 122 Pac. 154; Fooshee & Brunson v. Smith, 34 Okla. 247, 124 Pac. 1070. These decisions were based upon a construction of article 7, sec. 14, of the Constitution, 'conferring upon the county court, until otherwise provided by law, jurisdiction of all cases on appeal from judgments of justices of the *355 peace in both civil and criminal cases, and providing, further, that on appeal there should be a trial de novo on questions of both law and fact. Upon authority of the decisions cited, no error was committed by the county court in dismissing defendants’ petition in error.

The judgment of the trial court should therefore be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 552, 135 P. 341, 39 Okla. 353, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cullen-v-sloniker-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack