Callahan v. Nida

• Decision Date: 23 May 1922
• Docket Number: Case Number: 10682
• Citation: 86 Okla. 279,207 P. 966,1922 OK 184
• Parties: CALLAHAN v. NIDA.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1922 OK 184

207 P. 966

86 Okla. 279

CALLAHAN v. NIDA.

Case Number: 10682

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: May 23, 1922

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Duplicitous Appeal--Dismissal.

Where three separate actions between the same parties were tried together for convenience only, but separate verdicts and judgments were entered, and the plaintiff prosecutes one appeal upon one petition in error and one case-made, such appeal may be dismissed for duplicity.

2. Same.

Record examined, and held, that the assignments of error are without merit and the appeal should be dismissed.

Error from District Court, Logan County; John P. Hickam, Judge.

Actions by J. Y. Callahan against E. V. Nida. Judgments for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Appeal dismissed.

Pearson & Baird, for plaintiff in error.

John Adams, for defendant in error.

KENNAMER, J.

¶1 J. Y. Callahan, plaintiff in error, prosecutes this appeal against E. V. Nida, defendant in error, to reverse two distinct judgments rendered in favor of the defendant in error in the district court of Logan county wherein three different causes of action were tried together before the same jury. The record discloses that J. Y. Callahan commenced an action of forcible detainer against E. V. Nida before a justice of the peace, which resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, from which judgment the defendant, Nida, appealed to the district court. That after said cause had been filed in the district court on appeal, the plaintiff, Callahan, commenced a replevin action against Nida to recover possession of a number of cattle, hogs, etc., and that the plaintiff, Callahan, instituted a second replevin action against the defendant, Nida, in the district court to recover possession of certain household goods, cream separator, and soudan grass seed. It appears that all three of the actions were instituted about February, 1918. That in December, 1918, the parties by consent proceeded to try the three actions at the same time before the same jury for the convenience of the parties. No order of the court was made consolidating the actions. The jury returned a separate verdict in the unlawful detainer action in favor of the defendant.

¶2 The defendant made no claim to the right of possession to the property replevied in the two replevin actions on the date of the trial, but had filed an answer in the actions pleading that he was entitled to certain damages in each of the cases. The jury returned a single verdict in the replevin actions, finding in favor of the defendant for damages. The trial court entered two distinct judgments upon the two verdicts of the jury in the three causes. The plaintiff filed two different motions for a new trial, which were overruled by the court. To reverse the judgments of the trial court, this appeal has been prosecuted by filing one petition in error in this court and case-made of the record.

¶3 The three actions were instituted by the plaintiff, Callahan, by reason of a controversy having arisen between him and the defendant, Nida, with respect to the use and occupancy of certain lands owned by Callahan by Nida. It appears that in August, 1917, Callahan made an oral contract with Nida to work the land of Callahan and look after certain live stock of Callahan's, which he had upon the land, including about 20 head of Holstein milch cows. That Callahan undertook to dispossess Nida about February, 1918, and on account of a dispute between the plaintiff and defend...