Hillery Atkins Buick Co. v. Cox

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hillery Atkins Buick Co. v. Cox

1925 OK 807, 243 P. 935, 114 Okla. 46, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 1010

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 6, 1925

Docket16734

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK 807 (Hillery Atkins Buick Co. v. Cox) 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

Hillery Atkins Buick Co. v. Cox, 1925 OK 807, 243 P. 935, 114 Okla. 46, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 1010 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

*47 PER CURIAM.

This case is appealed from the county court of 'Stephens e:/unty. It was called for trial on the 9th day of March, 1926, and plaintiff in error presented a motion t»1 dismiss on the ground that there was then pending in the district court of Stephens county an action between the same parties and involving the same questions and that the same was so pending when the instant case was filed. This motion is what is known in edanmon pleading as a plea in bar. The court overruled the motion, and plaintiff in error excepted, gave notice of appeal, and was allowed 60 days in which to serve case-made. Plaintiff in error filed no answer or other pl'ea, and, upon overruling the motion, the court proceeded to try the case, and rendered judgment in favor of defendant in error. To this action of the court no exception is saved and no notice of appeal given.

The appeal is special and is limited to that part of the action overruling the motion ' to dismiss, which is not appealable. The judgment is not final, and neither is it such an interlocutory order as is made ap-pealable under the statute.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

*47 PER CURIAM.

This case is appealed from the county court of 'Stephens e:/unty. It was called for trial on the 9th day of March, 1926, and plaintiff in error presented a motion t»1 dismiss on the ground that there was then pending in the district court of Stephens county an action between the same parties and involving the same questions and that the same was so pending when the instant case was filed. This motion is what is known in edanmon pleading as a plea in bar. The court overruled the motion, and plaintiff in error excepted, gave notice of appeal, and was allowed 60 days in which to serve case-made. Plaintiff in error filed no answer or other pl'ea, and, upon overruling the motion, the court proceeded to try the case, and rendered judgment in favor of defendant in error. To this action of the court no exception is saved and no notice of appeal given.

The appeal is special and is limited to that part of the action overruling the motion ' to dismiss, which is not appealable. The judgment is not final, and neither is it such an interlocutory order as is made ap-pealable under the statute.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 807, 243 P. 935, 114 Okla. 46, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 1010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillery-atkins-buick-co-v-cox-okla-1925.