Foreman v. Fish

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Foreman v. Fish

1914 OK 471, 143 P. 661, 43 Okla. 641, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 585

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 13, 1914

Docket6644

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1914 OK 471 (Foreman v. Fish) 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

Foreman v. Fish, 1914 OK 471, 143 P. 661, 43 Okla. 641, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 585 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

BLEAKMORE, J.

On August 1, 1913, plaintiff in error commenced this action in the district court of Sequoyah county against Flattie R. Fish, Clyde William Fish, D. A. Anderson, and C. A. Olentine, for a cancellation of a deed executed by him to one A. E. Fish, for $600 damages for unlawfully withholding possession, and for $1,500 rents and profits of said lands. The defendants D. A. Anderson and C. A. Olentine answered by way of general denial. The defendants Flattie R. Fish and Clyde William Fish answered, and they, together with Clifford B. Fish, Nina Fish, Eunice Fish, Eva Flopkins, and Lucile Hunt, filed in said action their ’cross-petition, in which they allege that they are the sole heirs and devisees under the will of the said A. E- Fish, deceased, duly admitted to probate; that they and all of them, in June, 1913, conveyed to the defendant, D. A. Anderson, the land involved, and retained a lien upon said land for a portion of the purchase price in the sum of $1,000, *642 evidenced by a mortgage thereon executed by the said D. A. Anderson. Judgment was rendered against plaintiff, adjudging that said D. A. Anderson was the owner of said land by virtue of said deed, subject to the lien and mortgage of the defendants and cross-petitioners.

Defendants in error move a dismissal of this proceeding in error for the reason that Clifford G. Eish, Eunice Fish, Eva .Hopkins, and Eucile Hunt, cross-petitioners in whose favor the joint judgment of the court was rendered, are not made parties in this court. It has been repeatedly held by this court that all parties to a joint judgment, whose interests will be affected by a reversal thereof, must join in the prosecution of the appeal, or be made parties defendant in error. Following Crow v. Hardridge, ante, 143 Pac. 183, the motion to dismiss is sustained.

All the Justices concur.

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

BLEAKMORE, J.

On August 1, 1913, plaintiff in error commenced this action in the district court of Sequoyah county against Flattie R. Fish, Clyde William Fish, D. A. Anderson, and C. A. Olentine, for a cancellation of a deed executed by him to one A. E. Fish, for $600 damages for unlawfully withholding possession, and for $1,500 rents and profits of said lands. The defendants D. A. Anderson and C. A. Olentine answered by way of general denial. The defendants Flattie R. Fish and Clyde William Fish answered, and they, together with Clifford B. Fish, Nina Fish, Eunice Fish, Eva Flopkins, and Lucile Hunt, filed in said action their ’cross-petition, in which they allege that they are the sole heirs and devisees under the will of the said A. E- Fish, deceased, duly admitted to probate; that they and all of them, in June, 1913, conveyed to the defendant, D. A. Anderson, the land involved, and retained a lien upon said land for a portion of the purchase price in the sum of $1,000, *642 evidenced by a mortgage thereon executed by the said D. A. Anderson. Judgment was rendered against plaintiff, adjudging that said D. A. Anderson was the owner of said land by virtue of said deed, subject to the lien and mortgage of the defendants and cross-petitioners.

Defendants in error move a dismissal of this proceeding in error for the reason that Clifford G. Eish, Eunice Fish, Eva .Hopkins, and Eucile Hunt, cross-petitioners in whose favor the joint judgment of the court was rendered, are not made parties in this court. It has been repeatedly held by this court that all parties to a joint judgment, whose interests will be affected by a reversal thereof, must join in the prosecution of the appeal, or be made parties defendant in error. Following Crow v. Hardridge, ante, 143 Pac. 183, the motion to dismiss is sustained.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 471, 143 P. 661, 43 Okla. 641, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foreman-v-fish-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack