Steele v. Million

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Steele v. Million

1915 OK 771, 155 P. 495, 49 Okla. 728, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 8

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 12, 1915

Docket7360

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1915 OK 771 (Steele v. Million) 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

Steele v. Million, 1915 OK 771, 155 P. 495, 49 Okla. 728, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 8 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDY, J.

Defendant in error E. C. Million specially appears and files motion to dismiss for the reason *729 that summons in error was not issued and served upon him within the time prescribed by law. Motion for new trial was overruled December 21, 1914, and petition in error filed in this court May 13, 1915. Summons in error was issued on May 13, 1915, which was returned not served. On May 28, 1915, alias summons in error was issued and was returned not served on June 22, 1915. Since the last-named date no further effort towards procuring service upon said defendant in error has been made.

The appeal will be dismissed. In White Lumber Co. v. Beasley et al., 45 Okla. 771, 146 Pac. 1082, it was said:

“On appeal all parties to a judgment which is sought to be reversed whose interests will be affected by a reversal of the judgment must either join in the proceedings in error or be made parties defendant, and be brought into this court by service of summons within the statutory time, and where they do not voluntarily appear, or on motion, the appeal will be dismissed. Durant et al. v. Munford, 38 Okla. 552, 134 Pac. 50; School Dist. 39 v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9, 99 Pac. 646.”

It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

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

HARDY, J.

Defendant in error E. C. Million specially appears and files motion to dismiss for the reason *729 that summons in error was not issued and served upon him within the time prescribed by law. Motion for new trial was overruled December 21, 1914, and petition in error filed in this court May 13, 1915. Summons in error was issued on May 13, 1915, which was returned not served. On May 28, 1915, alias summons in error was issued and was returned not served on June 22, 1915. Since the last-named date no further effort towards procuring service upon said defendant in error has been made.

The appeal will be dismissed. In White Lumber Co. v. Beasley et al., 45 Okla. 771, 146 Pac. 1082, it was said:

“On appeal all parties to a judgment which is sought to be reversed whose interests will be affected by a reversal of the judgment must either join in the proceedings in error or be made parties defendant, and be brought into this court by service of summons within the statutory time, and where they do not voluntarily appear, or on motion, the appeal will be dismissed. Durant et al. v. Munford, 38 Okla. 552, 134 Pac. 50; School Dist. 39 v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9, 99 Pac. 646.”

It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 771, 155 P. 495, 49 Okla. 728, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steele-v-million-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack