State Capital Printing Co. v. Board of Commissioners

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State Capital Printing Co. v. Board of Commissioners

1899 OK 41, 56 P. 957, 8 Okla. 229, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 53

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 11, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1899 OK 41 (State Capital Printing Co. v. Board of Commissioners) 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

State Capital Printing Co. v. Board of Commissioners, 1899 OK 41, 56 P. 957, 8 Okla. 229, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 53 (Okla. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Tarsney, J.:

This is an action begun in the probate’ court of Grant county to vacate and annul a -judgment rendered in that court in another action, on the ground that said judgment is absolutely void, for th.e reason that the court rendering the same was without jurisdiction. This judgment must be reversed, and the cause dismissed for-the reason that it appears upon the face of the record that the court below had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The relief sought being purely equitable, not being sought by motion or other proceed-" ing in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, but *230 by an independent action, cognizable only in a court possessing general chancery jurisdiction, and as in this Territory a probate court cannot have or exercise general chancery jurisdiction, but only such as they are authorized by article. 15, ch. 18, Statutes of Oklahoma 1893, to exercise, and this case not coming within any of the provisions of that article, it follows that the proceedings herein in the court below were a mere nullity. (Rogers v. Bonnett, 2 Okla. 553, 37 Pac. 1078; Wetz v. Elliott, 4 Okla. 618, 51 Pac. 657; Central Loan & Trust Co. v. Campbell Commission Co., 5 Okla. 396, 49 Pac. 48; Ferris v. Higley, 20 Wall. 375; Clayton v. Utah Territory, 132 U. S. 632, 10 Sup. Ct. 190.) It is unncessary that we should discuss the principal proposition presented and relied upon by counsel for plaintiff in error in their brief, viz. that the court erred in overruling the objection to the introduction of any evidence under the plaintiff’s petition, the same not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, of the many other errors assigned and discussed in said brief. The only allegation in the petition, upon which the annulment of the judgment was asked was, “that said judgment is void because at the time said judgment was rendered the said court had no jurisdiction of the defendant or of the subject-matter of the action.” This is not an allegation of any fact, much less an allegation of facts sufficient to consiitute a cause of action. It is a mere allegation of conclusions of law. The other errors assigned and discussed were fully considered, discussed, and determined by this court in Hockaday v. Jones, this volume, p. 156. The judgment is reversed, and the cause dismissed.

All of the Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

Tarsney, J.:

This is an action begun in the probate’ court of Grant county to vacate and annul a -judgment rendered in that court in another action, on the ground that said judgment is absolutely void, for th.e reason that the court rendering the same was without jurisdiction. This judgment must be reversed, and the cause dismissed for-the reason that it appears upon the face of the record that the court below had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action. The relief sought being purely equitable, not being sought by motion or other proceed-" ing in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, but *230 by an independent action, cognizable only in a court possessing general chancery jurisdiction, and as in this Territory a probate court cannot have or exercise general chancery jurisdiction, but only such as they are authorized by article. 15, ch. 18, Statutes of Oklahoma 1893, to exercise, and this case not coming within any of the provisions of that article, it follows that the proceedings herein in the court below were a mere nullity. (Rogers v. Bonnett, 2 Okla. 553, 37 Pac. 1078; Wetz v. Elliott, 4 Okla. 618, 51 Pac. 657; Central Loan & Trust Co. v. Campbell Commission Co., 5 Okla. 396, 49 Pac. 48; Ferris v. Higley, 20 Wall. 375; Clayton v. Utah Territory, 132 U. S. 632, 10 Sup. Ct. 190.) It is unncessary that we should discuss the principal proposition presented and relied upon by counsel for plaintiff in error in their brief, viz. that the court erred in overruling the objection to the introduction of any evidence under the plaintiff’s petition, the same not stating facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, of the many other errors assigned and discussed in said brief. The only allegation in the petition, upon which the annulment of the judgment was asked was, “that said judgment is void because at the time said judgment was rendered the said court had no jurisdiction of the defendant or of the subject-matter of the action.” This is not an allegation of any fact, much less an allegation of facts sufficient to consiitute a cause of action. It is a mere allegation of conclusions of law. The other errors assigned and discussed were fully considered, discussed, and determined by this court in Hockaday v. Jones, this volume, p. 156. The judgment is reversed, and the cause dismissed.

All of the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1899 OK 41, 56 P. 957, 8 Okla. 229, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-capital-printing-co-v-board-of-commissioners-okla-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack