Lamb v. Young

1909 OK 225, 104 P. 335, 24 Okla. 614, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 80
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedSeptember 14, 1909
Docket127
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 1909 OK 225 (Lamb v. Young) 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
Lamb v. Young, 1909 OK 225, 104 P. 335, 24 Okla. 614, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 80 (Okla. 1909).

Opinion

Kane, C. J.

This was an action, commenced by the plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, against P. K. Young and Flora Young, as defendants, in the district court of Custer county;the plaintiffs alleging, in substance, that the defendants were, indebted to.them in the sum of $50 on account of a. commission due them for the sale of real estate. An attachment was issued .and levied upon lots 25 and 26, in block 66, ,in the town of Clinton, in said county, and service of summons was sought to be procured upon the defendants by publication. After the attachment was levied the defendant in error, W. I. Brannon, intervened and set up ownership of the lots, and filed a motion to discharge the sáme from the attachment levied upon them in the suit against the Youngs. The court below,sustained the motion to discharge the lots from the attachment, and the case was brought here by the plaintiffs upon a certified transcript of the record, without making the motion to discharge the attachment a part thereof by bill of exceptions or case-made. ,- ,

It has been- held by this court many times .that motions to discharge attachments and -proceedings - of that kind- are not part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions or, case-made. As the áction of the court below in sustaining the motion to discharge is the only error assigned, the certified transcript of • the record is not sufficient to present it to this court for review.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Hawkins v. Teurman
1945 OK 307 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1945)
Jones v. Welborn
1937 OK 496 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Savery v. Cochran
1935 OK 1088 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Hill v. Oklahoma Life Ins. Co.
1935 OK 803 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
First Nat. Bank v. Spears
1935 OK 744 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Bell v. Powell
1931 OK 89 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1931)
Savoy Oil Co. v. Emery
1928 OK 572 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
First Nat. Bank of McAlester v. McIntosh
1925 OK 276 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Harris v. Tupeker
1923 OK 990 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
London v. Merchants' Nat. Bank
1918 OK 144 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Maness v. Wilson
1916 OK 609 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
University Realty Co. v. English
1913 OK 674 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Brown-Beane Co. v. Rucker
1913 OK 47 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Stonebraker-Zea Cattle Co. v. Hilton
1912 OK 478 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Craig v. Greer, Sheriff
1912 OK 342 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Ellis v. Akers
1912 OK 127 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros.
1911 OK 117 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
School Dist. No. 1, Pontotoc County v. Vinsant
1911 OK 48 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1909 OK 225, 104 P. 335, 24 Okla. 614, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamb-v-young-okla-1909.