Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Hall

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Hall

1914 OK 113, 139 P. 305, 40 Okla. 447, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 49

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 3, 1914

Docket4547

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 1914 OK 113 (Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Hall) 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

Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Hall, 1914 OK 113, 139 P. 305, 40 Okla. 447, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 49 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

*448 TURNER, J.

On July 3, 1911, in the district court of Carter county, C. P. Hall, defendant in error, sued Appleton, Braziel, and Landrum, as principals, and the Southwestern Surety & Insurance Company, plaintiff in error, as surety, upon their respective official bonds, alleging false imprisonment as a breach thereof, and his damage $6,000. There were two verdicts, one in favor of Landrum and said company, as surety on his bond, and the other in favor of plaintiff and against Appleton for $100, and against Braziel for $150, but nothing was said in the verdict concerning said company as surety aforesaid. After motion for a new trial by Appleton and Braziel was filed and overruled and judgment rendered and entered in favor of plaintiff and against them respectively for-said amounts, and, on a subsequent day of the term, on motion of plaintiff, judgment was also rendered and entered against said company, as surety on their respective bonds, in favor of plaintiff for the respective amounts recovered against each of said principals, said company, after motion to set aside said judgment filed and overruled, brings the case here without making Appleton and Braziel parties to this proceeding.

While the record discloses two judgment entries on different dajcs, one against Appleton and Braziel and the other against the surety company, as surety on their respective official bonds, they are, in effect, a joint judgment, and will be so considered by this court, for the reason that we look to the substance rather than form. The rule is well settled in this state that all parties to a joint judgment must be joined in the proceedings in error either as plaintiffs or defendants. National Surety Co. v. Okla. Presbyterian College for Girls, 38 Okla. 429, 132 Pac. 652; Humphrey et al. v. Hunt, 9 Okla. 196, 59 Pac. 971; Chickasha Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Bezdicheck, 33 Okla. 688, 126 Pac. 821; Vaught v. Miners’ Bank of Joplin, 27 Okla. 100, 111 Pac. 214; Bonebrake v. Insurance Company (Kan.) 41 Pac. 67.

The motion to dismiss is sustained.

All the Justices concur.

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

*448 TURNER, J.

On July 3, 1911, in the district court of Carter county, C. P. Hall, defendant in error, sued Appleton, Braziel, and Landrum, as principals, and the Southwestern Surety & Insurance Company, plaintiff in error, as surety, upon their respective official bonds, alleging false imprisonment as a breach thereof, and his damage $6,000. There were two verdicts, one in favor of Landrum and said company, as surety on his bond, and the other in favor of plaintiff and against Appleton for $100, and against Braziel for $150, but nothing was said in the verdict concerning said company as surety aforesaid. After motion for a new trial by Appleton and Braziel was filed and overruled and judgment rendered and entered in favor of plaintiff and against them respectively for-said amounts, and, on a subsequent day of the term, on motion of plaintiff, judgment was also rendered and entered against said company, as surety on their respective bonds, in favor of plaintiff for the respective amounts recovered against each of said principals, said company, after motion to set aside said judgment filed and overruled, brings the case here without making Appleton and Braziel parties to this proceeding.

While the record discloses two judgment entries on different dajcs, one against Appleton and Braziel and the other against the surety company, as surety on their respective official bonds, they are, in effect, a joint judgment, and will be so considered by this court, for the reason that we look to the substance rather than form. The rule is well settled in this state that all parties to a joint judgment must be joined in the proceedings in error either as plaintiffs or defendants. National Surety Co. v. Okla. Presbyterian College for Girls, 38 Okla. 429, 132 Pac. 652; Humphrey et al. v. Hunt, 9 Okla. 196, 59 Pac. 971; Chickasha Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Bezdicheck, 33 Okla. 688, 126 Pac. 821; Vaught v. Miners’ Bank of Joplin, 27 Okla. 100, 111 Pac. 214; Bonebrake v. Insurance Company (Kan.) 41 Pac. 67.

The motion to dismiss is sustained.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 113, 139 P. 305, 40 Okla. 447, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southwestern-surety-ins-co-v-hall-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack