Saunders v. Mullen

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Saunders v. Mullen

1911 OK 428, 119 P. 963, 31 Okla. 19, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 3

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 14, 1911

Docket2453

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1911 OK 428 (Saunders v. Mullen) 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

Saunders v. Mullen, 1911 OK 428, 119 P. 963, 31 Okla. 19, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 3 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

*20 KANE, J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon the motion of defendants -in error to dismiss the appeal, based upon several grounds, one of which, at least, we think is well taken. The third ground for dismissal is that:

“This court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, for the reason that all the parties against whom judgment rendered in the trial court have not been made party plaintiffs in error on appeal.”

The record shows that judgment was rendered below against S. F. Saunders, A. O. Mallory, Cassie Pritchard, D. L. Brewer, T. Maynard, J. H. Jennings, and Newt Singleton, O. M. Nichols, N. B. Woolsey, R. E. Farris, Henry Pruitt, and W. N. Brown, and that Saunders, Mallory, Pritchard, Brewer, Maynard, Jennings, and Singleton joined as plaintiffs in error, making Mullen and Robberson defendants in error, eliminating as parties in this court Nichols, Woolsey, Farris, Pruitt, and Brown. The point is made by counsel for plaintiffs in error that as part of the judgment debtors who are omitted as parties were merely sureties they could not be affected by a reversal of the judgment; and therefore the appeal ought not to be dismissed on that ground.

This contention cannot be sustained. The judgment is joint in form, and it is impossible to distinguish the case at bar from Strange et al. v. Crismon, 22 Okla. 841, 98 Pac. 937, where the parties omitted from the record were sureties, and the appeal was dismissed upon the authority of a long line- of Oklahoma Territory cases. This court has followed Strange et al. v. Crismon, supra, in Weisbender et al. v. School District No. 6 Caddo County, 24 Okla. 173, 103 Pac. 639; John v. Paulin et al., 24 Okla. 636, 104 Pac. 365; Hughes v. Rhodes, 25 Okla. 172, 105 Pac. 650; Seibert v. First National Bank of Okeene, 25 Okla. 778, 108 Pac. 628; Continental Gin Co. v. Huff et al., 25 Okla. 798, 108 Pac. 369; First National Bank of Holdenville v. Jacobs, 26 Okla. 840, 111 Pac. 303; Vaught v. Miners' Bank of Joplin, 27 Okla. 100, 111 Pac. 214.

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

*20 KANE, J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon the motion of defendants -in error to dismiss the appeal, based upon several grounds, one of which, at least, we think is well taken. The third ground for dismissal is that:

“This court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, for the reason that all the parties against whom judgment rendered in the trial court have not been made party plaintiffs in error on appeal.”

The record shows that judgment was rendered below against S. F. Saunders, A. O. Mallory, Cassie Pritchard, D. L. Brewer, T. Maynard, J. H. Jennings, and Newt Singleton, O. M. Nichols, N. B. Woolsey, R. E. Farris, Henry Pruitt, and W. N. Brown, and that Saunders, Mallory, Pritchard, Brewer, Maynard, Jennings, and Singleton joined as plaintiffs in error, making Mullen and Robberson defendants in error, eliminating as parties in this court Nichols, Woolsey, Farris, Pruitt, and Brown. The point is made by counsel for plaintiffs in error that as part of the judgment debtors who are omitted as parties were merely sureties they could not be affected by a reversal of the judgment; and therefore the appeal ought not to be dismissed on that ground.

This contention cannot be sustained. The judgment is joint in form, and it is impossible to distinguish the case at bar from Strange et al. v. Crismon, 22 Okla. 841, 98 Pac. 937, where the parties omitted from the record were sureties, and the appeal was dismissed upon the authority of a long line- of Oklahoma Territory cases. This court has followed Strange et al. v. Crismon, supra, in Weisbender et al. v. School District No. 6 Caddo County, 24 Okla. 173, 103 Pac. 639; John v. Paulin et al., 24 Okla. 636, 104 Pac. 365; Hughes v. Rhodes, 25 Okla. 172, 105 Pac. 650; Seibert v. First National Bank of Okeene, 25 Okla. 778, 108 Pac. 628; Continental Gin Co. v. Huff et al., 25 Okla. 798, 108 Pac. 369; First National Bank of Holdenville v. Jacobs, 26 Okla. 840, 111 Pac. 303; Vaught v. Miners' Bank of Joplin, 27 Okla. 100, 111 Pac. 214.

The appeal must be dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 428, 119 P. 963, 31 Okla. 19, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saunders-v-mullen-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack