Goodman v. Watts

1923 OK 336, 215 P. 193, 90 Okla. 4, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 1083

• Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma
• Decided: June 5, 1923
• Docket: 13014
• Status: Published

Opinion

HARRISON, J.

This was an action in the district court of Canadian county, by John Watts, defendant in error, against Walter F. Goodman and the First National Bank of Yukon, for the return of $500 deposited in escrow in the First National Bank of Yukon, to be paid to Walter F. Goodman, in the event a certain contract relating to real estate be consummated, but in the event such contract be not consummated, but fail, then said $500 to be returned to Watts, the depositor. The contract failed, Goodman protested against the bank’s returning the'$500 to Watts, and the bank refused to return the same until ordered by the court; AYgtts thereupon brought suit against Goodman and the bank. Thereafter the bank filed answer, disclaiming any interest in said $500 or claim to same, anc] asked leave of the court to deposit same in court and be released from the controversy. The court granted this power, and the, $50,0 was paid into court, subject ,to its oi'deii and the bank released; thereafter Gobdmán filed motion for judgment as follows:

“Comes now the above-named defendant, Walter F. Goodman, and moves rho court for judgment against the said plaintiff, that the plaintiff take nothing by his action and for costs.”

The court overruled this motion, and Goodman having failed to answer, the court rendered judgment directing the clerk to pay over the $500 to Watts. Goodman appeals from the judgment, making the First National Bank of Yukon and John Watts defendants in error.

The petition in error and case-made was filed here February 1, 1922. Defendant in error filed motion to dismiss appeal on the ground, among other things, that the appeal was without merit, was frivolous, and taken for delay Service of this motion was accepted April 11, 1922. On May 19, 1922, plaintiff in error filed an amended petition in error, but has made no response to the motion to dismiss appeal. The appeal is manifestly frivolous and without merit.' Upon the record X'resented there is no theory upon which this court could justify reversing the judgment appealed from.

Upon authority of Kirkland v. Trezevant, 38 Okla. 445, 134 Pac. 1198, citing Johnson v. St. Paul Co. (Minn.) 701 N. W. 619, and followed bv this court in Skirvin v. Goldstein, 40 Okla. 315, 137 Pac. 1177, the motion to dismiss is sustained and the appeal dismissed, for lire reason that it is manifestly frivolous and wholly without merit.

JOHNSON, C. J., and KANE, KENNA-MER, and BRANSON. JJ„ concur.