Leforce v. Shirley & Young

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Leforce v. Shirley & Young

1914 OK 559, 145 P. 1150, 43 Okla. 769, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 618

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 17, 1914

Docket6488

StatusPublished

This text of 1914 OK 559 (Leforce v. Shirley & 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

Leforce v. Shirley & Young, 1914 OK 559, 145 P. 1150, 43 Okla. 769, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 618 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

RIDDLE, J.

Judgment was rendered in the court below against plaintiffs in error jointly. Plaintiff in error, LeForce, filed his separate motion for new trial, and did not join as a party thereto, plaintiff in error, Phelps, and Phelps made no further appearance in court after the rendition of the judgment. Plaintiff in error, LeForce, has filed his petition in error in this court, with original case-made attached. Motion has been filed to dismiss the appeal, for want of necessary parties. From the affidavit of Phelps attached to said motion, it appears that he was satisfied with the judgment of the trial court, and has not authorized anyone to represent him in the appeal of said cause; that he has not been served with case-made or with summons in error; and that he has not been made a party defendant in error. It is a well-settled rule of this court that, where all parties to a joint judgment are not made parties to the appeal, and it afirma *770 tively appears that their rights or interests will he affected by a reversal or modification of the judgment, the appeal will be dismissed for want of necessary parties. Strange v. Crismon, 22 Okla. 841, 98 Pac. 937; Continental Gin Co. v. Huff, 25 Okla. 798, 108 Pac. 369; Weissbender et al. v. School District No. 26, 24 Okla. 173, 103 Pac. 639.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

RIDDLE, J.

Judgment was rendered in the court below against plaintiffs in error jointly. Plaintiff in error, LeForce, filed his separate motion for new trial, and did not join as a party thereto, plaintiff in error, Phelps, and Phelps made no further appearance in court after the rendition of the judgment. Plaintiff in error, LeForce, has filed his petition in error in this court, with original case-made attached. Motion has been filed to dismiss the appeal, for want of necessary parties. From the affidavit of Phelps attached to said motion, it appears that he was satisfied with the judgment of the trial court, and has not authorized anyone to represent him in the appeal of said cause; that he has not been served with case-made or with summons in error; and that he has not been made a party defendant in error. It is a well-settled rule of this court that, where all parties to a joint judgment are not made parties to the appeal, and it afirma *770 tively appears that their rights or interests will he affected by a reversal or modification of the judgment, the appeal will be dismissed for want of necessary parties. Strange v. Crismon, 22 Okla. 841, 98 Pac. 937; Continental Gin Co. v. Huff, 25 Okla. 798, 108 Pac. 369; Weissbender et al. v. School District No. 26, 24 Okla. 173, 103 Pac. 639.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 559, 145 P. 1150, 43 Okla. 769, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leforce-v-shirley-young-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack