Whitehead v. R. E. Holmes' Sons

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Whitehead v. R. E. Holmes' Sons

1928 OK 283, 266 P. 767, 130 Okla. 225, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 510

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 24, 1928

Docket17119

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1928 OK 283 (Whitehead v. R. E. Holmes' Sons) 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

Whitehead v. R. E. Holmes' Sons, 1928 OK 283, 266 P. 767, 130 Okla. 225, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 510 (Okla. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

TEEHEE, C.

Plaintiffs in error, J. E. Whitehead, Julia Whitehead, the Pacific; Royalty Company, and M. S. Grant & Company, who were defendants below and are hereinafter so designated, by this appeal, complain of the judgment recovered against them by R. E. Holmes’ Sons, as plaintiff below, in an action of foreclosure of a rea^ estate mortgage. The judgment was for cer^ tain interest indebtedness of the defendants J. E. Whitehead and Julia Whitehead as mortgagors due plaintiff, and attorney’s fee^ and costs incurred by plaintiff in the action, decreed a sale of the property covered byj plaintiff’s mortgage, adjudged plaintiff’s lieni to be superior to certain claims of the defendants the Pacific Royalty Company and, M. S. Grant & Company, and two others not parties on appeal, and included a deficiency judgment as against the defendants J. E. AVhitehead and Julia Whitehead.

The appeal is predicated on grounds that go to the jurisdiction of the court over the persons of the defendants, which arise upon certain alleged fatal defects of plaintiff’s affidavit, whereon was based the issuance! and service of summons on the defendants by publication under section 250, C. O. S. 1921, they being nonresidents of the state, and the action being of that class wherein service of summons by publication is by the statute authorized. The question was raised in the trial court by special appearance of the defendants under a motion to quash the summons and service thereof, which motion by the court was overruled, and time al-j lowed for further plea by defendants, tof which order of the court they excepted. Protesting the jurisdiction of the court by reference to their motion to quash, though not made a part thereof, defendants answéred in effect by general denial, and upon trial, presented their defense. The action of the trial court in overruling- the motion to quash constitutes the head and front of the appeal, as defendants in their brief admit that their eight assignments of error sound therein with disposal of the several matters urged thereunder altogether dependent upon our review of the motion and the overruling! thereof, and that the same are sought to be here presented by a transcript of the records

Plaintiff’s response by brief is in effect a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground *226 that the motion to quash and ruling thereon, not being a part of the record proper, cannot be presented on appeal except by a bill of exceptions or a case-made. The point thus made by plaintiff must be sustained, as it is settled law in this state that a motion to quash the summons, and the service thereof, and the ruling of the trial court thereon, are not a part of the record proper in a cause, and that the same cannot be considered by the Supreme Court where the overruling of such motion is assigned as error and sought to be presented on appeal by a transcript of the record. Laird v. Brannon, 31 Okla. 627, 122 Pac. 180; School Dist. No. 1, Pontotoc County, v. Vinsant, 27 Okla. 731, 113 Pac. 714; United Fig & Date Co. v. Carroll, Brough, Robinson & Humphrey, 116 Okla. 82, 243 Pac. 211.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

BENNETT, LEACH, HERR, and DIF-FENDAFFER, Commissioners, concur.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

TEEHEE, C.

Plaintiffs in error, J. E. Whitehead, Julia Whitehead, the Pacific; Royalty Company, and M. S. Grant & Company, who were defendants below and are hereinafter so designated, by this appeal, complain of the judgment recovered against them by R. E. Holmes’ Sons, as plaintiff below, in an action of foreclosure of a rea^ estate mortgage. The judgment was for cer^ tain interest indebtedness of the defendants J. E. Whitehead and Julia Whitehead as mortgagors due plaintiff, and attorney’s fee^ and costs incurred by plaintiff in the action, decreed a sale of the property covered byj plaintiff’s mortgage, adjudged plaintiff’s lieni to be superior to certain claims of the defendants the Pacific Royalty Company and, M. S. Grant & Company, and two others not parties on appeal, and included a deficiency judgment as against the defendants J. E. AVhitehead and Julia Whitehead.

The appeal is predicated on grounds that go to the jurisdiction of the court over the persons of the defendants, which arise upon certain alleged fatal defects of plaintiff’s affidavit, whereon was based the issuance! and service of summons on the defendants by publication under section 250, C. O. S. 1921, they being nonresidents of the state, and the action being of that class wherein service of summons by publication is by the statute authorized. The question was raised in the trial court by special appearance of the defendants under a motion to quash the summons and service thereof, which motion by the court was overruled, and time al-j lowed for further plea by defendants, tof which order of the court they excepted. Protesting the jurisdiction of the court by reference to their motion to quash, though not made a part thereof, defendants answéred in effect by general denial, and upon trial, presented their defense. The action of the trial court in overruling- the motion to quash constitutes the head and front of the appeal, as defendants in their brief admit that their eight assignments of error sound therein with disposal of the several matters urged thereunder altogether dependent upon our review of the motion and the overruling! thereof, and that the same are sought to be here presented by a transcript of the records

Plaintiff’s response by brief is in effect a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground *226 that the motion to quash and ruling thereon, not being a part of the record proper, cannot be presented on appeal except by a bill of exceptions or a case-made. The point thus made by plaintiff must be sustained, as it is settled law in this state that a motion to quash the summons, and the service thereof, and the ruling of the trial court thereon, are not a part of the record proper in a cause, and that the same cannot be considered by the Supreme Court where the overruling of such motion is assigned as error and sought to be presented on appeal by a transcript of the record. Laird v. Brannon, 31 Okla. 627, 122 Pac. 180; School Dist. No. 1, Pontotoc County, v. Vinsant, 27 Okla. 731, 113 Pac. 714; United Fig & Date Co. v. Carroll, Brough, Robinson & Humphrey, 116 Okla. 82, 243 Pac. 211.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

BENNETT, LEACH, HERR, and DIF-FENDAFFER, Commissioners, concur.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1928 OK 283, 266 P. 767, 130 Okla. 225, 1928 Okla. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehead-v-r-e-holmes-sons-okla-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack