Miller v. Oklahoma State Bank

1913 OK 311, 132 P. 344, 38 Okla. 153, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 325
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 13, 1913
Docket4397
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 1913 OK 311 (Miller v. Oklahoma State Bank) 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. Oklahoma State Bank, 1913 OK 311, 132 P. 344, 38 Okla. 153, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 325 (Okla. 1913).

Opinion

KANE, J.

The question herein arises upon a motion by the defendants in error, E. C. Johnson .and S. H. Johnson partners, to dismiss the appeal, as to them, for the .reason that they are not necessary or proper parties thereto. The action originally was one wherein the defendant in error the Oklahoma State Bank was plaintiff and the plaintiffs in error herein were defendants. The movants herein intervened, alleging that they were entitled to judgment against the Millers upon a promissory note and the foreclosure of a mortgage upon the property *154 involved in the suit between the bank and the Millers. Thereafter the Millers answered, claiming affirmative relief against the movants. Upon the cause coming on for trial, the movants dismissed their petition in intervention, and the Millers offered no evidence tending to sustain the allegations upon which-they based their claim for affirmative relief, and no judgment was rendered in the cause which in any wise affected the-controversy between the Millers and the Johnsons. Under this statement of facts, the Johnsons are neither necessary nor proper parties to a proceeding in error, instituted by the Millers.

Their motion, therefore, to dismiss must be sustained.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Carey v. State Ex Rel. Doughty
67 P.2d 787 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
McGraw Tire & Rubber Co. v. Barton
211 N.W. 807 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1927)
Nunn v. Brillhart
242 S.W. 459 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1922)
Moline Plow Co. v. Hooven
1919 OK 318 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
Moline Plow Co. v. Wilson
1918 OK 373 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1913 OK 311, 132 P. 344, 38 Okla. 153, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-oklahoma-state-bank-okla-1913.