Harris v. District Court in and for Nowata County

1918 OK 255, 173 P. 69, 68 Okla. 231, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 351
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedApril 30, 1918
Docket9857
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 1918 OK 255 (Harris v. District Court in and for Nowata County) 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
Harris v. District Court in and for Nowata County, 1918 OK 255, 173 P. 69, 68 Okla. 231, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 351 (Okla. 1918).

Opinion

OWEN, J.

This is an original application for writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing the judgment of the district court rendered in the case of Nelson & Co. v. Henry Harris and Ada Harris et al., No. 2586, of the district court in and for No-wata county, and more particularly the action of the court in issuing a writ of assistance in t'hat cause dispossessing Henry Harris and Ada Harris of certain lands.

The.petition alleges, in substance, that in said cause No. 2586 judgment was rendered against these petitioners on certain promissory notes and foreclosing a mortgage to secure the payment of same; sale of the land in satisfaction of that judgment, and objections by these petitioners 'to the confirmation of the sale; that upon rendition of the judgment confirming the sale they prayed an appeal to this court and were granted 15 days within which to prepare and serve the case-made. Before the expiration of the time within which they were allowed to perfect their appeal, a writ of assistance issued dispossessing these petitioners from the lands and premises described in the mortgage. There is no allegation that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in rendering t'he judgment confirming the sale, or that the judgment was superseded.

The writ of certiorari, as used in this jurisdiction, brings up for review the sole question whether the inferior tribunal kept within or exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law. The writ cannot be used to correct errors committed by the inferior tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction. Parmenter v. Ray, 58 Okla. 27, 158 Pac. 1183; Grady County et al. v. Chickasha Cotton Oil Co., 63 Okla. 201, 164 Pac. 457.

The writ is denied.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Claiborne v. Joint Co Ns. School Dist. No. 7
1945 OK 31 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1945)
Of School District No. 9 v. Jones
1943 OK 184 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1943)
House v. Musick
1939 OK 121 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Smith v. Wells
1931 OK 675 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Board of Com'rs of Okfuskee County v. School Dist. No. 27
1930 OK 510 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
School Dist. No. 20 v. Walden
1930 OK 397 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Argabright v. Christison
1929 OK 524 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Coon v. Robinett
1929 OK 64 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Green-Boots Construction Co. v. State Highway Commission
1929 OK 40 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1918 OK 255, 173 P. 69, 68 Okla. 231, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-district-court-in-and-for-nowata-county-okla-1918.