Hill v. Oklahoma Life Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hill v. Oklahoma Life Ins. Co.

1935 OK 803, 50 P.2d 320, 173 Okla. 472, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 455

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 17, 1935

DocketNo. 26142.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1935 OK 803 (Hill v. Oklahoma Life Ins. Co.) 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

Hill v. Oklahoma Life Ins. Co., 1935 OK 803, 50 P.2d 320, 173 Okla. 472, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 455 (Okla. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was originally commenced in the district court as a damage action, 'in connection with a foreclosure proceeding by the Oklahoma Life Insurance Company. It is impossible to tell from the purported transcript filed herein the nature of the proceedings, but the plaintiff in error has attached to the response to the motion to dismiss a copy of his third amended petition, which sets out a purported action for damages. In the transcript the first thing shown is a motion to strike on behalf of certain parties interested in the real estate and the oil lease in connection therewith. And then appears an affidavit to disqualify the judge made by James W. Hill, and thereafter, on the 27th day of July, 1934, Freeman E. Miller, district judge refused to disqualify upon the affidavit presented. Thereafter, on the 18th day of September, 1934, motions to strike were filed by various parties and the court sustained the motions and dismissed the action. No appeal was taken from that order and no notice of appeal given at that time by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff therein, or within 10 days thereafter.

A motion to dismiss has been filed which alleges, among other things, that such an order is not an appealable order, that no notice of appeal was given from the order sustaining the motion to strike and dismissing the action, 'and that the case is not properly here.

The transcript is irregular and not certified as a true, full and correct copy of ail the proceedings had below.

We are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to determine whether or not the order of the judge refusing to disqualify is ap-pealable, for the reason that this court has repeatedly held that motions, affidavits 'in support thereof, and rulings made thereon are not a part of the record proper unless so made by case-made ot bill of exceptions; and where the errors complained of, if reviewable, could only be reviewed upon such case-made or bill of exceptions and the appeal is by transcript, the appeal w'ill be dismissed. First National Hank v. McIntosh, 113 Okla. 15, 237 F. 460; Lamb v. Young, 24 Okla. 614, 104 P. 335; Exchange National Bank of Ardmore v. Merritt, 108 Okla. 184, 235 P. 180; Cable v. Myers, 43 Okla. 302, 142 P. 1114; Powell v. Nichols, 26 Okla. 734, 110 P. 762, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 886. It is also unnecessary to pass upon the irregularities of the transcript. The appeal is dismissed.

MeNEILL, C. J„ OSBORN, Y. C. J., and BAYLESS, WELCH, and CORN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was originally commenced in the district court as a damage action, 'in connection with a foreclosure proceeding by the Oklahoma Life Insurance Company. It is impossible to tell from the purported transcript filed herein the nature of the proceedings, but the plaintiff in error has attached to the response to the motion to dismiss a copy of his third amended petition, which sets out a purported action for damages. In the transcript the first thing shown is a motion to strike on behalf of certain parties interested in the real estate and the oil lease in connection therewith. And then appears an affidavit to disqualify the judge made by James W. Hill, and thereafter, on the 27th day of July, 1934, Freeman E. Miller, district judge refused to disqualify upon the affidavit presented. Thereafter, on the 18th day of September, 1934, motions to strike were filed by various parties and the court sustained the motions and dismissed the action. No appeal was taken from that order and no notice of appeal given at that time by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff therein, or within 10 days thereafter.

A motion to dismiss has been filed which alleges, among other things, that such an order is not an appealable order, that no notice of appeal was given from the order sustaining the motion to strike and dismissing the action, 'and that the case is not properly here.

The transcript is irregular and not certified as a true, full and correct copy of ail the proceedings had below.

We are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to determine whether or not the order of the judge refusing to disqualify is ap-pealable, for the reason that this court has repeatedly held that motions, affidavits 'in support thereof, and rulings made thereon are not a part of the record proper unless so made by case-made ot bill of exceptions; and where the errors complained of, if reviewable, could only be reviewed upon such case-made or bill of exceptions and the appeal is by transcript, the appeal w'ill be dismissed. First National Hank v. McIntosh, 113 Okla. 15, 237 F. 460; Lamb v. Young, 24 Okla. 614, 104 P. 335; Exchange National Bank of Ardmore v. Merritt, 108 Okla. 184, 235 P. 180; Cable v. Myers, 43 Okla. 302, 142 P. 1114; Powell v. Nichols, 26 Okla. 734, 110 P. 762, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 886. It is also unnecessary to pass upon the irregularities of the transcript. The appeal is dismissed.

MeNEILL, C. J„ OSBORN, Y. C. J., and BAYLESS, WELCH, and CORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1935 OK 803, 50 P.2d 320, 173 Okla. 472, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-oklahoma-life-ins-co-okla-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack