Sanders v. Hart

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Sanders v. Hart

1912 OK 814, 130 P. 284, 35 Okla. 212, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 551

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 3, 1912

Docket2310

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1912 OK 814 (Sanders v. Hart) 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

Sanders v. Hart, 1912 OK 814, 130 P. 284, 35 Okla. 212, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 551 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

*213 WILLIAMS, J.

The defendant in error, W. T. Hart, as plaintiff, sued the plaintiffs in error, Joe "Sanders, Charley West, C. H. Blankenhsip, Will Ingram, and J. W. Weatherford, as defendants, in the county court of Garvin county. The cause was tried to a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff against defendants on January 21, 1910. On January 24, 1910, a motion for a new trial was filed. The same was continued from time to time until July 1, 1910, when the same was overruled. On January 31, 1911, this proceeding was commenced in this court by filing a petition in error, with case-made attached. In due time defendant in error moved that this proceeding be dismissed on the ground that the judgment obtained was joint against all o£ said defendants, and that said defendant, J. W. Weatherford, had not been made a party hereto either as plaintiff or defendant in error.

On December 5, 1911, counsel for plaintiffs in error, in response to the motion to dismiss, stated:

“That the omission of the name of J. W. Weatherford as a party plaintiff in error was an accidental oversight in counsel for plaintiffs in error in writing the petition in error, and an unintentional omission. That said Weatherford is a party in interest, that he signed the supersedeas bond for this appeal and hereby enters his appearance as one of the plaintiffs in error in this cause and agrees to be bound by the decision of the court herein.”

All necessary parties to a proceeding in error must be brought into the appellate proceedings, either by summons in error or general appearance, within the time allowed by statute for commencing such proceeding, and when not so done, this court has not jurisdiction of said action. John v, Paullin et al., 24 Okla. 636, 104 Pac. 365; Haynes et al. v. Smith, 29 Okla. 703, 119 Pac. 246; American National Bank v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 31 Okla. 533, 122 Pac. 507.

The appeal must be dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

*213 WILLIAMS, J.

The defendant in error, W. T. Hart, as plaintiff, sued the plaintiffs in error, Joe "Sanders, Charley West, C. H. Blankenhsip, Will Ingram, and J. W. Weatherford, as defendants, in the county court of Garvin county. The cause was tried to a jury and a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff against defendants on January 21, 1910. On January 24, 1910, a motion for a new trial was filed. The same was continued from time to time until July 1, 1910, when the same was overruled. On January 31, 1911, this proceeding was commenced in this court by filing a petition in error, with case-made attached. In due time defendant in error moved that this proceeding be dismissed on the ground that the judgment obtained was joint against all o£ said defendants, and that said defendant, J. W. Weatherford, had not been made a party hereto either as plaintiff or defendant in error.

On December 5, 1911, counsel for plaintiffs in error, in response to the motion to dismiss, stated:

“That the omission of the name of J. W. Weatherford as a party plaintiff in error was an accidental oversight in counsel for plaintiffs in error in writing the petition in error, and an unintentional omission. That said Weatherford is a party in interest, that he signed the supersedeas bond for this appeal and hereby enters his appearance as one of the plaintiffs in error in this cause and agrees to be bound by the decision of the court herein.”

All necessary parties to a proceeding in error must be brought into the appellate proceedings, either by summons in error or general appearance, within the time allowed by statute for commencing such proceeding, and when not so done, this court has not jurisdiction of said action. John v, Paullin et al., 24 Okla. 636, 104 Pac. 365; Haynes et al. v. Smith, 29 Okla. 703, 119 Pac. 246; American National Bank v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 31 Okla. 533, 122 Pac. 507.

The appeal must be dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 814, 130 P. 284, 35 Okla. 212, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-hart-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack