Gilchrist v. Strong

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Gilchrist v. Strong

1928 OK 157, 264 P. 884, 129 Okla. 298, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 421

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 6, 1928

Docket17448

StatusPublished

This text of 1928 OK 157 (Gilchrist v. Strong) 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

Gilchrist v. Strong, 1928 OK 157, 264 P. 884, 129 Okla. 298, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 421 (Okla. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

HUNT, J.

This action was originally filed by plaintiff, plaintiff in error here, against defendants, defendants in error here, in the district court of Ouster county, Olda., on November 10, 1925, where it remained until April 15, 1926, when, upon motion filed by plaintiff, it was transferred to the superior court of Custer county, located at Clinton. It appears from the record that defendants filed in said superior court their written objections to the jurisdiction of said court, which said objections were overruled by one W. P. Keen, purporting to act as judge of said court on May 6, 1926. Thereafter, on the same day, to wit, May 6, 1926, said W. P. Keen considered and sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s petition, same having been filed by defendants on January 18, 1926, while the case was pending in the district court of Custer county. The plaintiff elected to stand on his petition and declined to plead further; whereupon said W. P. Keen rendered judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

A motion to dismiss this appeal having heretofore been denied by formal order without an opinion, this matter comes on for consideration on the record and briefs presented. Upon further consideration and in view of the holding of this court in Koch v. Keen, 124 Okla. 270, 255 Pac. 690, wherein it was held that said W. P. Keen vs'as not a judge of said court, either de facto or de jure, and an absolute writ of prohibition was granted restraining and prohibiting said W. P. Keen from exercising jurisdiction as judge of the superior court of Custer county in an action there pending, we are of the opinion that the purported judgment sought to be appealed from herein is wholly void because rendered by a party not a judge, either de facto or de jure, and therefore acting without authority of law, and for these reasons the purported case-made filed herein is a nullity and presents nothing to this court for review. This court therefore acquired no jurisdiction of the matter save and except to dismiss the appeal.

It is therefore ordered that the appeal herein be and the same is hereby dismissed.

BRANSON, C. J., MASON, V. C. J., and LESTER, CLARK, and HEFNER, JJ., concur. HARRISON, PHELPS, and RILEY, JJ., not participating.

Note.—See 4 C. J. p. 362. §2017.

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

HUNT, J.

This action was originally filed by plaintiff, plaintiff in error here, against defendants, defendants in error here, in the district court of Ouster county, Olda., on November 10, 1925, where it remained until April 15, 1926, when, upon motion filed by plaintiff, it was transferred to the superior court of Custer county, located at Clinton. It appears from the record that defendants filed in said superior court their written objections to the jurisdiction of said court, which said objections were overruled by one W. P. Keen, purporting to act as judge of said court on May 6, 1926. Thereafter, on the same day, to wit, May 6, 1926, said W. P. Keen considered and sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s petition, same having been filed by defendants on January 18, 1926, while the case was pending in the district court of Custer county. The plaintiff elected to stand on his petition and declined to plead further; whereupon said W. P. Keen rendered judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

A motion to dismiss this appeal having heretofore been denied by formal order without an opinion, this matter comes on for consideration on the record and briefs presented. Upon further consideration and in view of the holding of this court in Koch v. Keen, 124 Okla. 270, 255 Pac. 690, wherein it was held that said W. P. Keen vs'as not a judge of said court, either de facto or de jure, and an absolute writ of prohibition was granted restraining and prohibiting said W. P. Keen from exercising jurisdiction as judge of the superior court of Custer county in an action there pending, we are of the opinion that the purported judgment sought to be appealed from herein is wholly void because rendered by a party not a judge, either de facto or de jure, and therefore acting without authority of law, and for these reasons the purported case-made filed herein is a nullity and presents nothing to this court for review. This court therefore acquired no jurisdiction of the matter save and except to dismiss the appeal.

It is therefore ordered that the appeal herein be and the same is hereby dismissed.

BRANSON, C. J., MASON, V. C. J., and LESTER, CLARK, and HEFNER, JJ., concur. HARRISON, PHELPS, and RILEY, JJ., not participating.

Note.—See 4 C. J. p. 362. §2017.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1928 OK 157, 264 P. 884, 129 Okla. 298, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilchrist-v-strong-okla-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack