Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Williams

1912 OK 190, 124 P. 63, 33 Okla. 202, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 666
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 12, 1912
Docket2835
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 1912 OK 190 (Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Williams) 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
Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 1912 OK 190, 124 P. 63, 33 Okla. 202, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 666 (Okla. 1912).

Opinion

TURNER, C. J.

On January 28, 1910, Otho L. Williams, defendant in error, sued the Kansas City, Mexico Si Orient Railway Company, plaintiff in error, and C. B. McGee, in damages for personal injuries. On April 18, 1911, there was trial to the court and judgment for plaintiff and against the defendant com *203 pany and in favor of McGee, and the company brings the case here without making McGee a party to this proceeding in error.

This was the precise state of the record in Humphrey et al. v. Hunt, 9 Okla. 196, 59 Pac. 971, where a motion to dismiss was sustained for want of necessary parties, as is sought to be done here. In that case Maggie Hunt sued Lewis Humphrey and others in damages for personal injuries, which resulted in a verdict and judgment rendered and entered for plaintiff and against all defendants save one Belt, who had judgment against plaintiff. The defendants against whom the judgment went prosecuted proceedings in error, serving only plaintiff with the case-made. In sustaining the motion the court, in effect, held that, as Belt might be prejudicially affected by a reversal of the joint judgment by which he was discharged from all liability to the plaintiff, he was a necessary party to the appeal, and dismissed the cause. We have followed this ruling in Strange et al. v. Crismon, 22 Okla. 841, 98 Pac. 937; Board of County Commissioners, etc., et al. v. Lemley, 23 Okla. 306, 101 Pac. 109; Weisbender et al. v. School District, etc., 24 Okla. 175, 103 Pac. 639; Spaulding Manufacturing Co. v. Dill et al., 25 Okla. 395, 106 Pac. 817, and the American National Bank of McAlester v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 31 Okla. 533, 122 Pac. 507. And this too, although, as here, after the time for the service of the case-made on McGee plaintiffs in error have amended their petition in error by making McGee a party defendant in error in this court, and he has entered his appearance and waived service of the case-made, for the reason that a failure to serve the case-made upon McGee within the time allowed defeats the jurisdiction of this court and prevents a review •of the judgment, although he subsequently appeared in this court and waived service of the case-made. American Nat. Bk. v. Mergenthaler, etc., Co., supra. The appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Stanley
1962 OK 127 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1962)
City of Sapulpa v. Young
1931 OK 6 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Scott v. Amis
1928 OK 767 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
City of Lawton v. Burnett
1919 OK 100 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Austin
1916 OK 832 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Wade v. Hope & Killingsworth
1916 OK 807 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Malone v. Scott
1916 OK 708 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Creek Realty Co. v. City of Muskogee
1915 OK 949 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Coss v. Sterritt
1915 OK 532 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Boyd v. Robinson
1915 OK 447 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Springfield v. Thompson
1915 OK 427 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Denny v. Ostrander
1912 OK 621 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Ft. Smith W. R. Co. v. Wilson
1912 OK 457 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Chickasha Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Bezdicheck
1912 OK 336 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1912 OK 190, 124 P. 63, 33 Okla. 202, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kansas-city-m-o-ry-co-v-williams-okla-1912.