Arthur v. Arthur
| Decision Date | 07 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 35991,35991 |
| Citation | 258 P.2d 1191 |
| Parties | ARTHUR et al. v. ARTHUR et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
An appeal does not lie to this court from an intermediate or interlocutory order mode during the pendency of an action, which intermediate or interlocutory order leaves the parties in court to have the issues tried on the merits, unless the appeal sought to be taken comes within some one of the special orders from which an appeal is authorized by statute prior to final judgment in the main action.
Little & Hoyt, Oklahoma City, Charles S. Arthur, Manhattan, Kan. and Virgil Shaw, El Reno, for plaintiffs in error.
Porta & Weaver and Rinehart & Rinehart, El Reno, for defendants in error.
This action was commenced in the trial court by the filing of a petition by Ira W. Arthur and Lizzie Kaler, coexecutors of the estate of J. E. Shirk, deceased, against Virgil M. Shaw, guardian of the person and estate of Cassie Vance, an incompetent person, Charles S. Arthur and Anna Pearson Arthur.
The petition alleges that Lizzie Kaler and Ira W. Arthur are coexecutors of the estate of J. E. Shirk, deceased, appointed the 19th day of August, 1912; that Charles S. Arthur and Anna Pearson Arthur are husband and wife; that Charles S. Arthur is the nephew of Cassie Vance; that by reason of the receipt of certain property Charles S. Arthur and his wife became indebted to the estate of J. E. Shirk, deceased, and the estate of Cassie Vance.
Issues were joined by answer after which the court ordered Charles S. Arthur and Anna Pearson Arthur to make an accounting of all funds, money and property received from the estate of J. E. Shirk, deceased, or from Cassie Vance.
The defendants Charles S. Arthur and Anna Pearson Arthur have appealed to this court from this order in separate petitions in error filed in this cause and the plaintiffs have filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the order is not a final order and the errors complained of cannot be presented to this court until there has been a final determination on the merits in the trial court.
The motion must be sustained. In Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Patterson, 73 Okl. 234, 175 P. 934, this court said:
'An appeal does not lie to this court from an intermediate or interlocutory order made during the pendency of an action, which intermediate or intorlocutory order leaves the parties in court to have the issues tried on the merits, unless the appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clement v. Ferguson
...test of the finality of orders or judgments is applied in this jurisdiction as is there cited. See 12 O.S.1951 § 953, and Arthur v. Arthur, Okl., 258 P.2d 1191, and the cases therein cited. While we recognize that the statutes of some states have specifically denominated the order for parti......
-
Porter v. Tayer, 39913
...there could be no final judgment in this proceeding. See in this connection Emerson v. Lewis, Okl., 274 P.2d 529, 531; Arthur v. Arthur, Okl., 258 P.2d 1191, 1192. There can be no final judgment until all issues raised by the pleadings, except such as are waived or abandoned, have been dete......
-
Arthur v. Arthur
...JOHNSON, Justice. This is the second appeal from the District Court of Canadian County in this case. The first appeal was Arthur v. Arthur, Okl., 258 P.2d 1191. The action was commenced by Ira W. Arthur and Lizzie Kaler, co-executors of the estate of J. E. Shirk, deceased, against Virgil M.......
-
Elliott v. Elliott
...Warren v. Howell, 204 Okl. 674, 232 P.2d 934. We have examined these cases and are of the opinion they are not in point. See Arthur v. Arthur, Okl., 258 P.2d 1191. In Attaway v. Watkins, 171 Okl. 102, 41 P.2d 914, in discussing a final order under 12 O.S.1951 § 953, in holding that the orde......