McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Kolb

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Kolb

1902 OK 23, 74 P. 367, 12 Okla. 1, 1902 Okla. LEXIS 43

DecidedJuly 16, 1902

StatusPublished

This text of 1902 OK 23 (McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Kolb) 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

McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Kolb, 1902 OK 23, 74 P. 367, 12 Okla. 1, 1902 Okla. LEXIS 43 (Okla. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Beauchamp, J.:

Plaintiff in error recovered a judgment in the justice’s court in and for Stillwater city township, Payne county, against the defendant in error for the sum of $92.38 and costs, upon two promissory notes. Defendant in error sought to review that judgment by petition in error in the district court of Payne county on the .2nd day of May, 1900, the district court, upon the hearing of the petition in error, found that there was error in the pro'ceedings in the justice’s court, reversed the judgment and «ordered the case docketed for trial in that court at the next term thereof, to which order and judgment of the district •court, the plaintiff in error duty excepted, and brings the case here upon petition in error for review.

As will be seen, the case is still pending and undeter'mined in the district court of Pajme countjr. No final .judgment has been rendered, not even a judgment for the •costs accrued to the time that the judgment of the justice was ^reversed by the district court.

The error complained of is one that cannot be brought ho this court until the case is finally disposed of. The order -is not a final order, nor is it one of the special orders enumerated in the code from which error lies before final decision of the cause.

The petition in error must be dismissed, with costs to plaintiff in error.

Burford, C. J., who presided in the court below, not -sitting.; Irwin, J., absent; all of the other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

Beauchamp, J.:

Plaintiff in error recovered a judgment in the justice’s court in and for Stillwater city township, Payne county, against the defendant in error for the sum of $92.38 and costs, upon two promissory notes. Defendant in error sought to review that judgment by petition in error in the district court of Payne county on the .2nd day of May, 1900, the district court, upon the hearing of the petition in error, found that there was error in the pro'ceedings in the justice’s court, reversed the judgment and «ordered the case docketed for trial in that court at the next term thereof, to which order and judgment of the district •court, the plaintiff in error duty excepted, and brings the case here upon petition in error for review.

As will be seen, the case is still pending and undeter'mined in the district court of Pajme countjr. No final .judgment has been rendered, not even a judgment for the •costs accrued to the time that the judgment of the justice was ^reversed by the district court.

The error complained of is one that cannot be brought ho this court until the case is finally disposed of. The order -is not a final order, nor is it one of the special orders enumerated in the code from which error lies before final decision of the cause.

The petition in error must be dismissed, with costs to plaintiff in error.

Burford, C. J., who presided in the court below, not -sitting.; Irwin, J., absent; all of the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1902 OK 23, 74 P. 367, 12 Okla. 1, 1902 Okla. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccormick-harvesting-machine-co-v-kolb-okla-1902.