Garland v. American Nat. Bank

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Garland v. American Nat. Bank

1916 OK 685, 158 P. 448, 59 Okla. 186, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1174

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 20, 1916

Docket7661

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK 685 (Garland v. American Nat. Bank) 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

Garland v. American Nat. Bank, 1916 OK 685, 158 P. 448, 59 Okla. 186, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1174 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

MATHEWS, C.

This was an action upon a joint promissory note. A joint judgment was rendered against the defendants, D. N. Garland and E. H. Perry. The said Garland filed a motion for a new trial. The same was overruled, and ho alone brings error to this court.

It appeal's that the case-made was not served upon E. H. Perry, and that he has not been made a party to this appeal. Summons in error ivas not served upon him, and neither has he waived the same.

The motion to dismiss filed heroin must be sustained. It has long since become tlie settled and uniform bolding of this court that all persons against whom a joint judgment has boon rendered most lie made parties to a proceeding in error to reverse such judgment, and such of those parties who fail or refuse to join in the appeal as plaintiffs in error must ho made defendants in error, and in such cases the case-made must be served upon them, and summons in error, unless waived, must be issued and served upon them. Wedd v. Gates et al., 15 Okla. 602, 82 Pac. 808; Continental Gin Co. v. Huff et al., 25 Okla. 798, 108 Pac. 369 ; May et al. v. Fitzpatrick et al., 35 Okla. 45, 127 Pac. 702 ; Smyser & McCormick v. Hudson, 38 Okla. 104, 331 Pac. 1076; Zeimann v. Bennett et al., 39 Okla. 344, 134 Pac. 1124: Price & Miller v. Ratcliffe et al., 47 Okla. 370, 148 Pac. 153.

We recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

By the Court: Tt is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

MATHEWS, C.

This was an action upon a joint promissory note. A joint judgment was rendered against the defendants, D. N. Garland and E. H. Perry. The said Garland filed a motion for a new trial. The same was overruled, and ho alone brings error to this court.

It appeal's that the case-made was not served upon E. H. Perry, and that he has not been made a party to this appeal. Summons in error ivas not served upon him, and neither has he waived the same.

The motion to dismiss filed heroin must be sustained. It has long since become tlie settled and uniform bolding of this court that all persons against whom a joint judgment has boon rendered most lie made parties to a proceeding in error to reverse such judgment, and such of those parties who fail or refuse to join in the appeal as plaintiffs in error must ho made defendants in error, and in such cases the case-made must be served upon them, and summons in error, unless waived, must be issued and served upon them. Wedd v. Gates et al., 15 Okla. 602, 82 Pac. 808; Continental Gin Co. v. Huff et al., 25 Okla. 798, 108 Pac. 369 ; May et al. v. Fitzpatrick et al., 35 Okla. 45, 127 Pac. 702 ; Smyser & McCormick v. Hudson, 38 Okla. 104, 331 Pac. 1076; Zeimann v. Bennett et al., 39 Okla. 344, 134 Pac. 1124: Price & Miller v. Ratcliffe et al., 47 Okla. 370, 148 Pac. 153.

We recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

By the Court: Tt is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 685, 158 P. 448, 59 Okla. 186, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garland-v-american-nat-bank-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack