Stallard v. Knapp

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Stallard v. Knapp

1900 OK 42, 60 P. 234, 9 Okla. 591, 1900 Okla. LEXIS 89

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 8, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 1900 OK 42 (Stallard v. Knapp) 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

Stallard v. Knapp, 1900 OK 42, 60 P. 234, 9 Okla. 591, 1900 Okla. LEXIS 89 (Okla. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Haiker, J.:

This was an action in replevin brought in the district court of Payne county on the 28th day of February, 1898, by Sylvester Knapp, defendant in error, plaintiff in the court below, against O. W. Annis, sheriff of Payne county,' to recover the possession of certain personal property of -the aggregate value of $468, alleged to have been unlawfully detained by said O. W. Annis, as sheriff of said county, under and by virtue of a certain execution issued out of the district court of said county. The sheriff filed an answer containing a general denial to the plaintiff’s petition, and at the trial F. M. Stallard and Frank Ellis, the plaintiffs in error, being the real parties *592 in interest, were, upon tbeir motion, substituted as defendants to the action in place of the sheriff. The cause was tried by a jury, and after the plaintiff and defendants offered their evidence in support of their respective issues-, the court directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff.

On the 14th day of May, 1898, the defendants filed their motion for a new trial, which was heard and overruled by the court on the 20th day of May, 1898. And thereupon the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the recovery of the property involved in controversy, and in case the same co-uld not be had, the value thereof in the sum of $485, and costs of the action. To which rulings and judgment of the cc-urt the defendants duly excepted, and bring the case here on what purports to be a case-made.

It appears that the case-made is signed by the judge, and dated the 26th day of October, 1898; but, it is not attested by the clerk, nor is the seal of the court attached thereto.

Where a case-made is signed by the trial judge, but is not attested by the clerk of the court with his signature, and the seal of the court is not attached thereto, it is- not sufficiently authenticated,as required by section 566 of the Civil Code, to constitute a legal case-made, and the judgment of the court cannot be reviewed here. (German Reform Church et al. v. Abbey, 54 Kan. 766, 39 Pac. 691.)

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Burford, C. J., having presided in the court below not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

Haiker, J.:

This was an action in replevin brought in the district court of Payne county on the 28th day of February, 1898, by Sylvester Knapp, defendant in error, plaintiff in the court below, against O. W. Annis, sheriff of Payne county,' to recover the possession of certain personal property of -the aggregate value of $468, alleged to have been unlawfully detained by said O. W. Annis, as sheriff of said county, under and by virtue of a certain execution issued out of the district court of said county. The sheriff filed an answer containing a general denial to the plaintiff’s petition, and at the trial F. M. Stallard and Frank Ellis, the plaintiffs in error, being the real parties *592 in interest, were, upon tbeir motion, substituted as defendants to the action in place of the sheriff. The cause was tried by a jury, and after the plaintiff and defendants offered their evidence in support of their respective issues-, the court directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff.

On the 14th day of May, 1898, the defendants filed their motion for a new trial, which was heard and overruled by the court on the 20th day of May, 1898. And thereupon the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the recovery of the property involved in controversy, and in case the same co-uld not be had, the value thereof in the sum of $485, and costs of the action. To which rulings and judgment of the cc-urt the defendants duly excepted, and bring the case here on what purports to be a case-made.

It appears that the case-made is signed by the judge, and dated the 26th day of October, 1898; but, it is not attested by the clerk, nor is the seal of the court attached thereto.

Where a case-made is signed by the trial judge, but is not attested by the clerk of the court with his signature, and the seal of the court is not attached thereto, it is- not sufficiently authenticated,as required by section 566 of the Civil Code, to constitute a legal case-made, and the judgment of the court cannot be reviewed here. (German Reform Church et al. v. Abbey, 54 Kan. 766, 39 Pac. 691.)

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Burford, C. J., having presided in the court below not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1900 OK 42, 60 P. 234, 9 Okla. 591, 1900 Okla. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stallard-v-knapp-okla-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack