Martin v. Brannon

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Martin v. Brannon

1931 OK 251, 299 P. 877, 149 Okla. 143, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 204

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 12, 1931

Docket20010

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK 251 (Martin v. Brannon) 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

Martin v. Brannon, 1931 OK 251, 299 P. 877, 149 Okla. 143, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 204 (Okla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

HEFNER, J.

On the 19th day of October, 1925, F. T. Brannon obtained a, judgment against Harry Martin in the justice court *144 in the city of Tulsa for the sum of $141.45. Mártin appealed to the district court. Thereafter the district court made, an order transferring the cause to the court of common pleas. This order was duly entered on the journal of the district court. Thereafter the court clerk transmitted a transcript of the proceedings to- the court of common pleas, but failed to insert therein the order of transfer. It appears from the record that the clerk inserted in the transcript a general order of transfer made iñ 19-23 transferring all cases then pending and within the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas to that eom't instead of transmitting the oi'der of transfer in the particular case. Upon the receipt and filing of the transcript the cause was regularly set for trial in the court of common pleas and judgment rendered against Martin in his absence.

This action was then brought by Martin, as plaintiff, in the district court of Tulsa county to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment on the ground that it was YOid on its face. The trial court denied the injunction. Plaintiff contends the judgment is void for the reason that the transcript transmitting the proceedings to the court of common pleas failed to contain the order of transfer. We do not agree with this contention. The failure to include this order in the transcript was a mere irregularity which could be corrected at any time. The order of transfer made by the district court conferred jurisdiction upon the court of common pleas. The mere failure of the court clerk to properly certify the proceeding could not divest that court of its jurisdiction. Moore v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 497, 129 Pac. 76.

Judgment is affirmed.

LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, MC-NEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ„ concur. RILEY, X, absent.

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

HEFNER, J.

On the 19th day of October, 1925, F. T. Brannon obtained a, judgment against Harry Martin in the justice court *144 in the city of Tulsa for the sum of $141.45. Mártin appealed to the district court. Thereafter the district court made, an order transferring the cause to the court of common pleas. This order was duly entered on the journal of the district court. Thereafter the court clerk transmitted a transcript of the proceedings to- the court of common pleas, but failed to insert therein the order of transfer. It appears from the record that the clerk inserted in the transcript a general order of transfer made iñ 19-23 transferring all cases then pending and within the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas to that eom't instead of transmitting the oi'der of transfer in the particular case. Upon the receipt and filing of the transcript the cause was regularly set for trial in the court of common pleas and judgment rendered against Martin in his absence.

This action was then brought by Martin, as plaintiff, in the district court of Tulsa county to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment on the ground that it was YOid on its face. The trial court denied the injunction. Plaintiff contends the judgment is void for the reason that the transcript transmitting the proceedings to the court of common pleas failed to contain the order of transfer. We do not agree with this contention. The failure to include this order in the transcript was a mere irregularity which could be corrected at any time. The order of transfer made by the district court conferred jurisdiction upon the court of common pleas. The mere failure of the court clerk to properly certify the proceeding could not divest that court of its jurisdiction. Moore v. State, 8 Okla. Cr. 497, 129 Pac. 76.

Judgment is affirmed.

LESTER, C. J., CLARK, V. C. J., and CULLISON, SWINDALL, ANDREWS, MC-NEILL, and KORNEGAY, JJ„ concur. RILEY, X, absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK 251, 299 P. 877, 149 Okla. 143, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-brannon-okla-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack