Long v. Bearden

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Long v. Bearden

1916 OK 826, 160 P. 467, 58 Okla. 653, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 85

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 10, 1916

Docket8242, 8305

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1916 OK 826 (Long v. Bearden) 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

Long v. Bearden, 1916 OK 826, 160 P. 467, 58 Okla. 653, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 85 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal, which is from a money judgment for $1,785, is based upon the grounds: (1) That the judgment rendered in the lower court was a joint judgment against the United States Fi *654 delity & Guaranty Company ahd H. G. Malot, and that Malot has not been made a party to the proceedings in error; (2) that no case-made was ever served on Malot. After this motion to dismiss had been filed, these causes were consolidated by order of this court upon motion filed.

The case-made in No. 8242 was served upon Malot’s attorney, and Malot has been made a party defendant in error. It will therefore be seen that the objections urged for dismissal of cause No. 8242 are untenable. But in case No. 8305 said Malot was not made a party to this appeal, and, since the judgment was a joint judgment against Malot and the surety company, he should have been joined in the appeal. Michael v. Isom, 43 Okla. 708, 143 Pac. 1053.

It would therefore seem that the motion to dismiss should be overruled in case No. 8242, and it is so ordered; and that the order consolidating these causes be set aside and cause No. 8305 be dismissed pursuant to the motion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal, which is from a money judgment for $1,785, is based upon the grounds: (1) That the judgment rendered in the lower court was a joint judgment against the United States Fi *654 delity & Guaranty Company ahd H. G. Malot, and that Malot has not been made a party to the proceedings in error; (2) that no case-made was ever served on Malot. After this motion to dismiss had been filed, these causes were consolidated by order of this court upon motion filed.

The case-made in No. 8242 was served upon Malot’s attorney, and Malot has been made a party defendant in error. It will therefore be seen that the objections urged for dismissal of cause No. 8242 are untenable. But in case No. 8305 said Malot was not made a party to this appeal, and, since the judgment was a joint judgment against Malot and the surety company, he should have been joined in the appeal. Michael v. Isom, 43 Okla. 708, 143 Pac. 1053.

It would therefore seem that the motion to dismiss should be overruled in case No. 8242, and it is so ordered; and that the order consolidating these causes be set aside and cause No. 8305 be dismissed pursuant to the motion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 826, 160 P. 467, 58 Okla. 653, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-bearden-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack