Walcher v. Burford

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Walcher v. Burford

1915 OK 153, 147 P. 774, 47 Okla. 98, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 116

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 6, 1915

Docket6978

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1915 OK 153 (Walcher v. Burford) 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

Walcher v. Burford, 1915 OK 153, 147 P. 774, 47 Okla. 98, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 116 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDY, J.

Plaintiff in error seeks to reverse an order of the district court of Oklahoma county dismissing his action against defendants in error, entered on the 18th day of August, 1914. An order was made allowing 60 days to prepare and serve case-made, ten days additional for amendments, and requiring same to be settled upon five days’ notice; and the matter is now presented on motion to dismiss.

It appears that one Fred Ptak was a defendant in the original suit, and that case-made was served upon him, as shown by his acknowledgment of service; but nowhere in the record does it appear that notice ■ of the time and place of settlement was ever served on him, or that he waived such notice or suggested any amendments, or was present, either in person or by counsel, at the settlement thereof; and, inasmuch as a reversal of the order of dismissal would affect him the same as any other defendant, he was a necessary party and the failure to serve notice of the time and place of settlement upon said defendant is fatal to the jurisdiction of this court. Wood v. Jones et al., 32 Okla. 640, 122 Pac. 678; Thompson et al. v. Fulton, 29 Okla. 700, 119 Pac. 24; Harrison v. Penny, 28 Okla. 523, 144 Pac. 734; Safford et al. v. Turner, 53 Kan. 728, 37 Pac. 121; Bridge Co. v. Fowler, 55 Kan. 17, 39 Pac. 727.

The petition in error is, therefore, dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except KANE, Cl J., not participating.

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

HARDY, J.

Plaintiff in error seeks to reverse an order of the district court of Oklahoma county dismissing his action against defendants in error, entered on the 18th day of August, 1914. An order was made allowing 60 days to prepare and serve case-made, ten days additional for amendments, and requiring same to be settled upon five days’ notice; and the matter is now presented on motion to dismiss.

It appears that one Fred Ptak was a defendant in the original suit, and that case-made was served upon him, as shown by his acknowledgment of service; but nowhere in the record does it appear that notice ■ of the time and place of settlement was ever served on him, or that he waived such notice or suggested any amendments, or was present, either in person or by counsel, at the settlement thereof; and, inasmuch as a reversal of the order of dismissal would affect him the same as any other defendant, he was a necessary party and the failure to serve notice of the time and place of settlement upon said defendant is fatal to the jurisdiction of this court. Wood v. Jones et al., 32 Okla. 640, 122 Pac. 678; Thompson et al. v. Fulton, 29 Okla. 700, 119 Pac. 24; Harrison v. Penny, 28 Okla. 523, 144 Pac. 734; Safford et al. v. Turner, 53 Kan. 728, 37 Pac. 121; Bridge Co. v. Fowler, 55 Kan. 17, 39 Pac. 727.

The petition in error is, therefore, dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except KANE, Cl J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 153, 147 P. 774, 47 Okla. 98, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walcher-v-burford-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack