Miller v. Berryman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Miller v. Berryman

1934 OK 683, 37 P.2d 975, 169 Okla. 524, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 421

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 27, 1934

Docket23462

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1934 OK 683 (Miller v. Berryman) 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

Miller v. Berryman, 1934 OK 683, 37 P.2d 975, 169 Okla. 524, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 421 (Okla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff in the lower court, appealed this cause from a judgment pronounced in favor of defendant in error.

*525 The case-made was certified by the court clerk, settled and signed by the trial judge, and attested by the clerk with the seal of the court thereto attached, but there is no filing mark in the case-made to indicate that the same was filed with the papers in the ease as provided in section 785, O. 0. S. 1921 (section 534, O. S. 1931).

Among other things, this section of the statute provides:

“* * * The case and amendments shall, upon three days’ notice, be submitted to the judge, who shall settle and sign the same, and cause it to be attested by the clerk and the seal of the court to be thereto attached. It shall then be filed with the papers in the case. * *

This court has uniformly held that the statute above quoted is mandatory. St. Louis-I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Burrow, 33 Okla. 701, 127 P. 478; St. Louis-S. & F. R. Co. v. Blassingame & Woodward, 76 Okla. 183, 184 P. 574; Backenstock v. Young, 121 Okla. 156, 248 P. 611: St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Bonham, 43 Okla. 637, 143 P. 660; Hall v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 82 Okla. 158, 198 P. 999.

The case-made not having been filed with the papers in the case after settling and signing by the court and attested by the clerk, this court cannot accept jurisdiction of this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

The Supreme Court acknowledges the aid of Attorneys Fred M. Carter, Hayes McCoy, and John F. Pendleton in the preparation of this opinion. These attorneys constituted an advisory committee selected by the State Bar, appointed by the Judicial Council, and approved by the Supreme Court. After the analysis of law and facts was prepared by Mr. Carter, and approved by Mr. McCoy and Mr. Pendleton, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this court for examination and report to the court. Thereafter, upon consideration, this opinion was adopted.

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

PER CUBIAM.

The plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff in the lower court, appealed this cause from a judgment pronounced in favor of defendant in error.

*525 The case-made was certified by the court clerk, settled and signed by the trial judge, and attested by the clerk with the seal of the court thereto attached, but there is no filing mark in the case-made to indicate that the same was filed with the papers in the ease as provided in section 785, O. 0. S. 1921 (section 534, O. S. 1931).

Among other things, this section of the statute provides:

“* * * The case and amendments shall, upon three days’ notice, be submitted to the judge, who shall settle and sign the same, and cause it to be attested by the clerk and the seal of the court to be thereto attached. It shall then be filed with the papers in the case. * *

This court has uniformly held that the statute above quoted is mandatory. St. Louis-I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Burrow, 33 Okla. 701, 127 P. 478; St. Louis-S. & F. R. Co. v. Blassingame & Woodward, 76 Okla. 183, 184 P. 574; Backenstock v. Young, 121 Okla. 156, 248 P. 611: St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Bonham, 43 Okla. 637, 143 P. 660; Hall v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 82 Okla. 158, 198 P. 999.

The case-made not having been filed with the papers in the case after settling and signing by the court and attested by the clerk, this court cannot accept jurisdiction of this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

The Supreme Court acknowledges the aid of Attorneys Fred M. Carter, Hayes McCoy, and John F. Pendleton in the preparation of this opinion. These attorneys constituted an advisory committee selected by the State Bar, appointed by the Judicial Council, and approved by the Supreme Court. After the analysis of law and facts was prepared by Mr. Carter, and approved by Mr. McCoy and Mr. Pendleton, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this court for examination and report to the court. Thereafter, upon consideration, this opinion was adopted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK 683, 37 P.2d 975, 169 Okla. 524, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-berryman-okla-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack