McCrory v. Worley

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McCrory v. Worley

1920 OK 137, 188 P. 1066, 78 Okla. 65, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 300

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 30, 1920

Docket9982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1920 OK 137 (McCrory v. Worley) 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

McCrory v. Worley, 1920 OK 137, 188 P. 1066, 78 Okla. 65, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 300 (Okla. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, J.

Judgment was rendered for defendant in error in the district court of Carter county December 13, 1917, and her title to the lands in controversy was quieted by a decree of that court. On March 8, 1920, plaintiff in error filed motion for judgment and attached to such motion a confession of judgment by Melvina Worley, defendant in error. A response to the motion to enter judgment was filed by J. R. Brady, who "claims to be- the real party in interest by virtue of a certain warranty deed made on the 9th day of February, 1917, and filed for record on the 8th day of March, 1918.

As concerns the parties to the appeal, the controversy appears to have been settled and determined, and, under the holding of this court, the appeal should therefore be dismissed. Spalding et al. v. Yarbrough, 40 Okla. 731, 140 Pac. 782; Quinn v. State ex rel. Cole, 43 Okla. 198, 141 Pac. 1166.

Motion of J. R. Brady to be substituted as the real party in interest cannot be sustained, for the reason that it shows on its face that whatever interest he may have to the lands in controversy existed several months prior to the rendition of judgment in the district court. The record fails to show any motion to intervene in the trial court.

Both the facts set up in the response to the motion filed by plaintiff in error for judgment and the motion to be substituted as defendant in error show Brady to be the real party in interest, and that he has all along furnished the money for the suit. A necessary party to the proceeding in error *66 should not be made for the first time in this court. May et al. v. Fitzpatrick et al., 35 Okla. 45, 127 Pac. 702.

For the reasons stated, the appeal will be dismissed.

OWEN, O. J., RAINEY, Y. G. J., and JOHNSON, PITCHFORD, McNEILL, HIGGINS, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

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

KANE, J.

Judgment was rendered for defendant in error in the district court of Carter county December 13, 1917, and her title to the lands in controversy was quieted by a decree of that court. On March 8, 1920, plaintiff in error filed motion for judgment and attached to such motion a confession of judgment by Melvina Worley, defendant in error. A response to the motion to enter judgment was filed by J. R. Brady, who "claims to be- the real party in interest by virtue of a certain warranty deed made on the 9th day of February, 1917, and filed for record on the 8th day of March, 1918.

As concerns the parties to the appeal, the controversy appears to have been settled and determined, and, under the holding of this court, the appeal should therefore be dismissed. Spalding et al. v. Yarbrough, 40 Okla. 731, 140 Pac. 782; Quinn v. State ex rel. Cole, 43 Okla. 198, 141 Pac. 1166.

Motion of J. R. Brady to be substituted as the real party in interest cannot be sustained, for the reason that it shows on its face that whatever interest he may have to the lands in controversy existed several months prior to the rendition of judgment in the district court. The record fails to show any motion to intervene in the trial court.

Both the facts set up in the response to the motion filed by plaintiff in error for judgment and the motion to be substituted as defendant in error show Brady to be the real party in interest, and that he has all along furnished the money for the suit. A necessary party to the proceeding in error *66 should not be made for the first time in this court. May et al. v. Fitzpatrick et al., 35 Okla. 45, 127 Pac. 702.

For the reasons stated, the appeal will be dismissed.

OWEN, O. J., RAINEY, Y. G. J., and JOHNSON, PITCHFORD, McNEILL, HIGGINS, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK 137, 188 P. 1066, 78 Okla. 65, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccrory-v-worley-okla-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack