King v. Shults

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

King v. Shults

1916 OK 778, 159 P. 1106, 60 Okla. 218, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1336

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 12, 1916

Docket7668

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1916 OK 778 (King v. Shults) 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

King v. Shults, 1916 OK 778, 159 P. 1106, 60 Okla. 218, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1336 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

MATHEWS, C.

This action ■was brought in the district court of Okfus-kee county for the possession of a certain tract of lánd and to quiet title. The defendant James M. Shults answered, claiming title in himself, and asked that his title be •quieted. Barnogee Parnosky answered, claiming to hold a valid mortgage against said land, executed by the defendant Shults. The Prairie Oil & Gas Company answered, claiming to be the owner of a valid oil and gas lease upon the premises in controversy. The name of C. W. Brewer is signed to the answers of the first two defendants named above, and Rossiter & Wright answered for said Oil & Gas Company, and at the commencement of the trial, Mr. Wright announced that “we appear for the Prairie Oil & Gas Company.” The journal entry of judgment has the following recitation:

“Comes the defendant James M. Shults, by C. W. Brewer, his attorney, and comes D. Replogle, guardian aforesaid, by his attorney, C. W. Brewer, and comes the Prairie Oil & Gas Company by its attorneys. Ros-si'ter & Wright.”

The case-made and notice of settlement of case-made were served upon Attorney C. W. Brewer, who accepted service, signing his name, “C. W. Brewer, attorney 'for defendants,” but th,e written suggestion of amendments made by him were signed by “C. W. Brewer, Atty. for James M. Shults and D. Replogle, guardian.” Summons in error was not served upon the said Prairie Oil & Gas Company or any of their representatives. The Prairie Oil & Gas Company now files its motion to dismiss this appeal for the reasons that. neither the case-made, notice of time and place of settlement of same, nor summons in error have been served upon it or waived by it. The trial court found that the said Prairie Oil & Gas Company was the owner of a valid oil and gas lease on the land in controversy. ' It deraigned its 'title thereto through its codefendant, James M. Shults. The court further found that the title to the land was in said Shults. The validity of its lease is dependent upon the validity of Shults’ title, and it is therefore plainly apparent that a reversal of the judgment would materially affect the interest of the Prairie Oil & Gas Company. It was made a party in the trial court, and there set up its interest in the land, and the court found that it had a substantial interest therein, and it is certainly a necessary party to this appeal.

Appellant had actual notice that Rossiter & Wright were appearing for the Prairie Oil & Gas Company and Brewer for the other two defendants. The answers of the respective parties are so signed. One of the members of the firm of Rossiter & Wright made a verbal statement in open court that his firm appeared for the Prairie Oil & Gas Company, and the journal entry of judgment recites that fact, and it there *219 fore follows that the service of the case-made, etc., upon O. W. Brewer was ineffective as far as the Prairie Oil & Gas Company was concerned.

For these reasons the appeal should he dismissed.

By the Court: it is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

MATHEWS, C.

This action ■was brought in the district court of Okfus-kee county for the possession of a certain tract of lánd and to quiet title. The defendant James M. Shults answered, claiming title in himself, and asked that his title be •quieted. Barnogee Parnosky answered, claiming to hold a valid mortgage against said land, executed by the defendant Shults. The Prairie Oil & Gas Company answered, claiming to be the owner of a valid oil and gas lease upon the premises in controversy. The name of C. W. Brewer is signed to the answers of the first two defendants named above, and Rossiter & Wright answered for said Oil & Gas Company, and at the commencement of the trial, Mr. Wright announced that “we appear for the Prairie Oil & Gas Company.” The journal entry of judgment has the following recitation:

“Comes the defendant James M. Shults, by C. W. Brewer, his attorney, and comes D. Replogle, guardian aforesaid, by his attorney, C. W. Brewer, and comes the Prairie Oil & Gas Company by its attorneys. Ros-si'ter & Wright.”

The case-made and notice of settlement of case-made were served upon Attorney C. W. Brewer, who accepted service, signing his name, “C. W. Brewer, attorney 'for defendants,” but th,e written suggestion of amendments made by him were signed by “C. W. Brewer, Atty. for James M. Shults and D. Replogle, guardian.” Summons in error was not served upon the said Prairie Oil & Gas Company or any of their representatives. The Prairie Oil & Gas Company now files its motion to dismiss this appeal for the reasons that. neither the case-made, notice of time and place of settlement of same, nor summons in error have been served upon it or waived by it. The trial court found that the said Prairie Oil & Gas Company was the owner of a valid oil and gas lease on the land in controversy. ' It deraigned its 'title thereto through its codefendant, James M. Shults. The court further found that the title to the land was in said Shults. The validity of its lease is dependent upon the validity of Shults’ title, and it is therefore plainly apparent that a reversal of the judgment would materially affect the interest of the Prairie Oil & Gas Company. It was made a party in the trial court, and there set up its interest in the land, and the court found that it had a substantial interest therein, and it is certainly a necessary party to this appeal.

Appellant had actual notice that Rossiter & Wright were appearing for the Prairie Oil & Gas Company and Brewer for the other two defendants. The answers of the respective parties are so signed. One of the members of the firm of Rossiter & Wright made a verbal statement in open court that his firm appeared for the Prairie Oil & Gas Company, and the journal entry of judgment recites that fact, and it there *219 fore follows that the service of the case-made, etc., upon O. W. Brewer was ineffective as far as the Prairie Oil & Gas Company was concerned.

For these reasons the appeal should he dismissed.

By the Court: it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 778, 159 P. 1106, 60 Okla. 218, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-shults-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack