Tarkenton v. Carpenter

1915 OK 529, 150 P. 482, 48 Okla. 498, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 661
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 29, 1915
Docket4742
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 1915 OK 529 (Tarkenton v. Carpenter) 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
Tarkenton v. Carpenter, 1915 OK 529, 150 P. 482, 48 Okla. 498, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 661 (Okla. 1915).

Opinion

Opinion by

WATTS, C.

This case presents an attempted. appeal from the district court of Jefferson county, where the plaintiff in error brought suit against the defendant in error to recover for services as real estate agent. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff below for $1 and costs. Motion for new trial was overruled on the 9th day of September, 1912, and plaintiff appeals.

Sixty days -were given to make and serve case-made. September 16, 1912, case-made was presented to the trial judge, who signed and settled the same, and thereafter, on January 13, 1913, was filed in the office of the clerk of the district court, on which date the clerk thereof attested the signature of the trial judge but failed to attach the seal of the court. The pretended case-made and petition in error were filed in this court January 20, 1913.

Under section 6074, Comp. Laws 1909 (sec. 5242, Rev. Laws 1910), it is provided that:

“The case and amendments shall be submitted to the judge, who shall settle and sign * * * same, and cause it to be attested by the clerk, and the seal of the court to be thereto attached. It shall then be filed with the papers in the case.”

As we understand the law, the clerk of the court must, in addition to attesting the signature of the trial *500 judge, attach the seal of the court. The above provision of the statute is mandatory, and therefore the judgment of the trial court cannot be reviewed here. Stallard et al. v. Knapp, 9 Okla. 591, 60 Pac. 234; Oligschlager v. Grell, 13 Okla. 632, 75 Pac. 1131; Okla. City v. McKean, 39 Okla. 300, 135 Pac. 19.

The petition in error should, therefore, be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Related

Dailey v. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Pawhuska
1923 OK 175 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Lindsay State Bank v. Cornelius
1919 OK 286 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
Board of Com'rs of Mayes County v. Vann
159 P. 297 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Walker v. Walker
1916 OK 41 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Courtney v. Moore
1915 OK 709 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1915 OK 529, 150 P. 482, 48 Okla. 498, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tarkenton-v-carpenter-okla-1915.