Oklahoma Auto Supply Co. v. Mathey

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Oklahoma Auto Supply Co. v. Mathey

1916 OK 438, 157 P. 55, 53 Okla. 391, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 418

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 11, 1916

Docket7781

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK 438 (Oklahoma Auto Supply Co. v. Mathey) 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

Oklahoma Auto Supply Co. v. Mathey, 1916 OK 438, 157 P. 55, 53 Okla. 391, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 418 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was an action of replevin brought in a justice court, and from there appealed to the superior court of Muskogee county. At the trial, *392 after plaintiff had introduced its evidence, defendant Mathey and the interpleader, Von Unworth, demurred thereto, which demurrer was sustained. Motion for a new trial being overruled, plaintiff brings error to this court.

Motion to dismiss the proceeding in error has been ñled, one of the grounds thereof being that no notice for the settlement of the case-made was served upon Mathey and Von Unworth, and that such notice had not been waived. An examination of the case-made supports the motion, for it does not appear that such notice of settlement of case-made was served; nor that the suggestion of amendment requested by said Mathey and Von Unworth was incorporated into the case-made, no.r that they were present, either in person or by counsel, at the settlement of said case-made. The appeal being by case-made, because of plaintiff in error’s failure to comply with the statutory provisions as to service thereof, it must be dismissed. Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. State Nat. Bank, 25 Okla. 128, 105 Pac. 647; Wood v. Jones, 32 Okla. 640, 122 Pac. 678; Brown v. Marks, 45 Okla. 711, 146 Pac. 707; Foral v. Bogle, 44 Okla. 805, 146 Pac. 706; Comanche Mercantile Co. v. Northwestern Knitting Co., 54 Okla. -, 153 Pac. 1158.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was an action of replevin brought in a justice court, and from there appealed to the superior court of Muskogee county. At the trial, *392 after plaintiff had introduced its evidence, defendant Mathey and the interpleader, Von Unworth, demurred thereto, which demurrer was sustained. Motion for a new trial being overruled, plaintiff brings error to this court.

Motion to dismiss the proceeding in error has been ñled, one of the grounds thereof being that no notice for the settlement of the case-made was served upon Mathey and Von Unworth, and that such notice had not been waived. An examination of the case-made supports the motion, for it does not appear that such notice of settlement of case-made was served; nor that the suggestion of amendment requested by said Mathey and Von Unworth was incorporated into the case-made, no.r that they were present, either in person or by counsel, at the settlement of said case-made. The appeal being by case-made, because of plaintiff in error’s failure to comply with the statutory provisions as to service thereof, it must be dismissed. Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. State Nat. Bank, 25 Okla. 128, 105 Pac. 647; Wood v. Jones, 32 Okla. 640, 122 Pac. 678; Brown v. Marks, 45 Okla. 711, 146 Pac. 707; Foral v. Bogle, 44 Okla. 805, 146 Pac. 706; Comanche Mercantile Co. v. Northwestern Knitting Co., 54 Okla. -, 153 Pac. 1158.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 438, 157 P. 55, 53 Okla. 391, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oklahoma-auto-supply-co-v-mathey-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack