Dies v. Boyngton

1923 OK 35, 212 P. 318, 88 Okla. 156, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 568
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided January 23, 1923·No. 13971·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

MeNEILL, J.

Defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the appeal upon several grounds, one of which was that no notice of the time and place of signing and settling thie case-made was given, nor was defendant in error present or represented when ease-made was signed and settled. Notice of service was had upon plaintiffs in error of the motion to dismiss, and no response has been filed thereto.

The court, in the case of Ranney-Davis Merc. Co. v. Morris, 88 Okla. 107, 211 Pac. 1044, announced the rule, as follows:

“Where no notice of the time of settlement of the case-made is given or waived, and there is no appearance by the opposite party, either in person or by' counsel, the case-made is a nullity, and this court acquires no jurisdiction to decide the question therein.”

■Por the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss is sustained.

JOHNSON, V. O. J., and KANE, COCHRAN, and BRANSON, JJ., concur.

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

Dies v. Boyngton, 1923 OK 35, 212 P. 318, 88 Okla. 156, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 568 (Okla. 1923).

1923 OK 35 (Dies v. Boyngton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dixon v. Wright
1936 OK 230 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Green
1928 OK 601 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Argentoes v. Fidelity Bldg. & Loan Ass'n
1927 OK 155 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)