Newton v. State

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Newton v. State

1923 OK 878, 219 P. 899, 93 Okla. 137, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 352

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 30, 1923

Docket12300

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1923 OK 878 (Newton v. State) 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

Newton v. State, 1923 OK 878, 219 P. 899, 93 Okla. 137, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 352 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

RUTH, C.

[This action was founded upon the seizure of a Ford car by the sheriff of Jackson county, who made his return showing the car was used to transport intoxicating liquors. O. 0. Newton filed his petition in the nature of a plea of intervention and upon a trial to the court evidence was introduced by both the *138 state and the intervener, and upon conclusion of all the evidence the court rendered judgment confiscating the car and ■ ordering it sold according to law. The inter--vener attempts to bring error and have the cause reviewed by this court and flies his caise-made and brief. The state has not seen At to favor us with a brief in this case, but under Bule 7 of this court, the court may affirm or reverse the judgment of the trial court. Russell & Washington v. Robertson, 82 Okla. 283, 200 Pac. 150; Incorporated Town of Kusa v. Bouggous, 82 Okla. 204, 200 Pac. 154, and others.

“The question of jurisdiction is primary and fundamental in every case, and cannot be waived by the parties or overlooked by the court. It is the bounden duty of the court to examine into its jurisdiction, whether raised by any party or not,. and sui sponte, to determine its own jurisdiction.” Howard v. Arkansaw, 59 Okla. 206, 158 Pac. 437.

The record in- this ease discloses that after both plaintiff and defendant rested, the court rendered judgment, and intervener gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. The 'record does not disclose that any motion for a new trial was filed, and the petition in error fails to assign as error the overruling of a motion for a new trial by the court below.

Por the reasons above stated, this appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

RUTH, C.

[This action was founded upon the seizure of a Ford car by the sheriff of Jackson county, who made his return showing the car was used to transport intoxicating liquors. O. 0. Newton filed his petition in the nature of a plea of intervention and upon a trial to the court evidence was introduced by both the *138 state and the intervener, and upon conclusion of all the evidence the court rendered judgment confiscating the car and ■ ordering it sold according to law. The inter--vener attempts to bring error and have the cause reviewed by this court and flies his caise-made and brief. The state has not seen At to favor us with a brief in this case, but under Bule 7 of this court, the court may affirm or reverse the judgment of the trial court. Russell & Washington v. Robertson, 82 Okla. 283, 200 Pac. 150; Incorporated Town of Kusa v. Bouggous, 82 Okla. 204, 200 Pac. 154, and others.

“The question of jurisdiction is primary and fundamental in every case, and cannot be waived by the parties or overlooked by the court. It is the bounden duty of the court to examine into its jurisdiction, whether raised by any party or not,. and sui sponte, to determine its own jurisdiction.” Howard v. Arkansaw, 59 Okla. 206, 158 Pac. 437.

The record in- this ease discloses that after both plaintiff and defendant rested, the court rendered judgment, and intervener gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. The 'record does not disclose that any motion for a new trial was filed, and the petition in error fails to assign as error the overruling of a motion for a new trial by the court below.

Por the reasons above stated, this appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 878, 219 P. 899, 93 Okla. 137, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newton-v-state-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack