Burroughs v. Cocke
Decision Date | 01 February 1916 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 6093 |
Citation | 156 P. 196,1916 OK 130,56 Okla. 627 |
Parties | BURROUGHS v. COCKE & WILLIS. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. PROCESS--Service--Exemptions--Nonresidents. (a) A nonresident, who comes within the confines of this state for the purpose of attending upon the taking of depositions to be used in the trial of a cause pending in another jurisdiction in which he is one of the litigants, is privileged from service of summons while within the state upon that business, and he does not forfeit this privilege merely because he transacts other business not connected with the taking of the depositions, provided the controlling cause of his being within the state was the taking of the depositions. (b) But if the desire to transact other business not connected with the taking of the depositions was the controlling motive that brought him within the jurisdiction of the court, or if he fails to leave the state within a reasonable time after the taking of the depositions is completed, then he is not entitled to the exemption from service of summons.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR--Review--Questions of Fact. Evidence examined, and held sufficient to sustain the findings of the trial court that the party was not exempt from service of summons.
McPherren & Cochran, for plaintiff in error.
Works & Copping, for defendant in error.
¶1 The parties will be referred to as in the trial court. This was an action for attorney fees instituted by plaintiff against defendant in the district court of Choctaw county. Defendant resides in Chicago, Ill., but was served with summons while in Choctaw county. Soon after defendant was served with summons he filed a motion to set the same aside and, as his grounds therefor, alleged that he resided in Chicago and was a nonresident of the State of Oklahoma, and that, at the time of the service of summons on him, he was present in the town of Hugo, Choctaw county, Okla., in pursuance of a notice served upon him that depositions would be taken in said town on said date to be used in the trial of the case of N. T. Burroughs v. Payne Lumber Co., pending in the United States District Court at Chicago, he being the said plaintiff; that he was present at said time for no other purpose than the taking of said depositions, for the purpose of assisting and advising his attorneys; that he came directly from Chicago to Hugo for this purpose and that he returned immediately after the taking of same; that the summons was served upon him while he was still in attendance for the purpose of taking said depositions and before the same had been completed. This motion was heard before Judge A. H. Ferguson, who overruled the same and made the following findings of fact:
¶2 The cause was tried to a jury, Judge Hardy presiding, and a verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $ 500. On passing upon the motion for a new trial, Judge Hardy made the following findings:
¶3 But one assignment of error is urged here and that is, that the defendant was at the time of the service of summons upon him exempt therefrom, as he was in Hugo as suitor in a case then pending in the federal court at Chicago, being himself a resident of Chicago, and that h...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal.
... ... Bright, 52 Ill. 35 (1869), or who were there as a party or witness in unrelated judicial proceedings, see, e.g., Burroughs v. Cocke & Willis, 56 Okla. 627, 156 P. 196 (1916); Malloy v. Brewer, 7 S.D. 587, 64 N.W. 1120 (1895). These exceptions obviously rested upon ... ...
-
Thomas v. Blackwell
... ... However, we find dictum. See Burroughs v. Cocke & Willis, 56 Okla. 627, 156 P. 196. 16 In the case at bar we are concerned with the specific question of whether a nonresident, who is ... ...
-
Livengood v. Ball
... ... their motion to quash the service of summons herein should have been sustained.3 A certain phase of this question was before this court in Burroughs v. Cocke & Willis, 56 Okla. 627, 156 P. 196, L. R. A. 1916E, 1170, where it was held that a nonresident who voluntarily came within this state for ... ...
-
Bearman v. Hunt
... ... Willis, 44 Okla. 303, 144 P. 587; Burroughs v. Cocke & Willis, 56 Okla. 627, 156 P. 196, L.R.A. 1916E, 1170; Hume et al. v. Cragin, 61 Okla. 219, 160 P. 621; Livengood et al. v. Ball et al., 63 ... ...