Flathers v. Flathers

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Flathers v. Flathers

1913 OK 68, 130 P. 134, 35 Okla. 342, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 578

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 28, 1913

Docket2890

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1913 OK 68 (Flathers v. Flathers) 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

Flathers v. Flathers, 1913 OK 68, 130 P. 134, 35 Okla. 342, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 578 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

The defendant in error has moved th'e dismissal of this proceeding in -error, on the ground that the case-made was signed, as shown by the certificate of the trial judge, on July 14-, 1911, when the notice served on said defendant in error, as the same appears in the record, stated that the same would be -presented at the designated place for signing and settlement on July 15, 1911. Neither does the record disclose that any appearance on the part of the defendant in error was made, nor that any suggestions as to amendments were filed, for the purpose of having them incorporated in said record, and the record does not disclose that any amendments were allowed or disallowed.

In Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Brandt, 33 Okla. 661, 126 Pac. 787, the syllabus is as follows:

*343 “Where the certificate of the trial judge to a case-made fails to show that the case-made was signed and settled at the place designated in the notice to defendant in error as the place of signing and settling the same, and it is made to appear by the un-controverted affidavit of defendant in error that he was present at the designated time and at the place designated in the notice during the entire day, for the purpose of urging the incorporation into the case-made of' amendments theretofore suggested by him within the time allowed by order of the court, and that the case-made was not presented at such place on the designated date, the case-made will be held a nullity and the proceeding in error dismissed. * * * ”

See, also, Lister et al. v. Williams, 28 Okla. 302, 114 Pac. 255; Harrison et al. v. Penny, 28 Okla. 523, 114 Pac. 734; First Nat. Bank of Collinsville v. Daniels, 26 Okla. 383, 103 Pac. 748.

All the Justices concur.

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

WILLIAMS, J.

The defendant in error has moved th'e dismissal of this proceeding in -error, on the ground that the case-made was signed, as shown by the certificate of the trial judge, on July 14-, 1911, when the notice served on said defendant in error, as the same appears in the record, stated that the same would be -presented at the designated place for signing and settlement on July 15, 1911. Neither does the record disclose that any appearance on the part of the defendant in error was made, nor that any suggestions as to amendments were filed, for the purpose of having them incorporated in said record, and the record does not disclose that any amendments were allowed or disallowed.

In Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Brandt, 33 Okla. 661, 126 Pac. 787, the syllabus is as follows:

*343 “Where the certificate of the trial judge to a case-made fails to show that the case-made was signed and settled at the place designated in the notice to defendant in error as the place of signing and settling the same, and it is made to appear by the un-controverted affidavit of defendant in error that he was present at the designated time and at the place designated in the notice during the entire day, for the purpose of urging the incorporation into the case-made of' amendments theretofore suggested by him within the time allowed by order of the court, and that the case-made was not presented at such place on the designated date, the case-made will be held a nullity and the proceeding in error dismissed. * * * ”

See, also, Lister et al. v. Williams, 28 Okla. 302, 114 Pac. 255; Harrison et al. v. Penny, 28 Okla. 523, 114 Pac. 734; First Nat. Bank of Collinsville v. Daniels, 26 Okla. 383, 103 Pac. 748.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 68, 130 P. 134, 35 Okla. 342, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flathers-v-flathers-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack