Patterson v. Foreman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Patterson v. Foreman

1913 OK 198, 133 P. 178, 38 Okla. 420, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 391

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 12, 1913

Docket2408

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK 198 (Patterson v. Foreman) 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

Patterson v. Foreman, 1913 OK 198, 133 P. 178, 38 Okla. 420, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 391 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

*421 DUNN, J.

This case presents error from the district court of Pottawatomie county. A motion has been lodged in this court, by counsel, for defendant in error, seeking to secure a dismissal of the same for the reason, among others, that no notice of the time and place of the signing and settlement of the case-made was given or waived, and there was no appearance of the opposite party either in person or by counsel at the time of the settlement of the same.

It appears from the record' that the ease was served on counsel for defendant in error on the 21st day of February, 1911, but it is not made to appear, either by the case-made or by any extraneous showing, that the essential prerequisites relied on by movant took place, nor that any amendments to the case-made were suggested. The case-made was signed and settled by the trial judge on the 6th day of March, 1911. The question presented is no longer an open one in this court, having been settled by a number of cases, among which may be noted Ft. Smith & Western Ry. Co. v. State Nat. Bank of Shawnee, 25 Okla. 128, 105 Pac. 647, and Harrison et al. v. Penney, 28 Okla. 523, 114 Pac. 734; the rule being that where, in a proceeding in error brought to this court on a- case-made it does not appear, from the record or otherwise, that the dedefendant in error was present, either personally or by counsel, at the settlement, nor that notice of the time thereof was seiwed or waived, nor that any amendments were suggested, allowed, or disallowed, the same will be dismissed on motion of the defendant in error.

It therefore follows that the case must be dismissed.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur; KANE, J., absent.

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

*421 DUNN, J.

This case presents error from the district court of Pottawatomie county. A motion has been lodged in this court, by counsel, for defendant in error, seeking to secure a dismissal of the same for the reason, among others, that no notice of the time and place of the signing and settlement of the case-made was given or waived, and there was no appearance of the opposite party either in person or by counsel at the time of the settlement of the same.

It appears from the record' that the ease was served on counsel for defendant in error on the 21st day of February, 1911, but it is not made to appear, either by the case-made or by any extraneous showing, that the essential prerequisites relied on by movant took place, nor that any amendments to the case-made were suggested. The case-made was signed and settled by the trial judge on the 6th day of March, 1911. The question presented is no longer an open one in this court, having been settled by a number of cases, among which may be noted Ft. Smith & Western Ry. Co. v. State Nat. Bank of Shawnee, 25 Okla. 128, 105 Pac. 647, and Harrison et al. v. Penney, 28 Okla. 523, 114 Pac. 734; the rule being that where, in a proceeding in error brought to this court on a- case-made it does not appear, from the record or otherwise, that the dedefendant in error was present, either personally or by counsel, at the settlement, nor that notice of the time thereof was seiwed or waived, nor that any amendments were suggested, allowed, or disallowed, the same will be dismissed on motion of the defendant in error.

It therefore follows that the case must be dismissed.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur; KANE, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 198, 133 P. 178, 38 Okla. 420, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-foreman-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack