Huddleston v. Wallow

Decision Date11 May 1926
Docket NumberCase Number: 17143
PartiesHUDDLESTON v. WALLOW et al.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Parties--Service of Case-Made--Jurisdiction--Dismissal.

Chapter 219, S. L. 1917 (Comp. Stat. 1921, sec. 782), was not intended to relax or abrogate any existing requirements of the law concerning the preparation, service, settlement, and filing of a case-made for appeal, but relates solely to the method of making all parties of record in the trial court parties of record in this court and prescribes the kind and character of notice which shall be effective for this purpose.

2. Same--Death of Party--Failure to Revive Cause.

Where a successful party in a joint judgment dies before service of case-made and such case-made is thereafter served upon the attorneys who represented deceased at the trial, such service is a nullity, and such case-made thereafter settled and filed is ineffectual to confer jurisdiction upon this court to review alleged errors occurring at the trial, neither the administrators nor heirs having been brought in by proceedings to revive.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Error from District Court, Okfuskee County; John L. Norman, Judge.

Action by Peter Wallow and others against C. T. Huddleston to recover possession of certain land and to quiet title thereto. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Dismissed.

J. B. Patterson, Logan Stephenson, and C. T. Huddleston, for plaintiff in error.

Anglin & Stevenson, for defendants in error.

LOGSDON, C.

¶1 In this case judgment was entered in the trial court April 6, 1925, and motion for new trial was overruled September 21, 1925. By appropriate and timely orders the time for preparing and serving case-made was extended to January 19, 1926. A petition in error was filed in this court January 20, 1926, to which was attached a purported case-made. March 31, 1926, a motion to dismiss was filed upon the ground that the purported case-made is a nullity. Response to this motion was filed April 7, 1926, and on April 13th an order was entered denying the motion to dismiss.

¶2 The case comes on for further hearing now upon the motion of plaintiffs below to vacate and set aside the order denying the motion to dismiss, leave to file which was granted by the court April 20th. The purported case-made was served upon the attorneys for plaintiffs January 5, 1926, and it is made to appear that Peter Wallow, one of the plaintiffs below, died December 16, 1925, leaving surviving him a widow, Mahala Wallow, and one child, Sallie Wallow, and that there has been no revivor of the action.

¶3 Upon the death of Peter Wallow the power and authority of the attorneys representing him ceased, and a case-made thereafter served upon them without an order of revivor and a renewal of their authority by the administrators or heirs is a nullity and wholly ineffectual to present alleged errors occurring during the trial. Kilgore v. Yarnell et al., 24 Okla. 525, 103 P. 698; May et al. v. Fitzpatrick et al., 35 Okla. 45, 127 P. 702; Barrick et al. v. Smith, 77 Okla. 163, 187 P. 199; City of Anadarko v. McKee, 89 Okla. 166, 214 P. 700.

¶4 The judgment in the instant case is a joint judgment in favor of plaintiffs as the sole and only heirs of Lucy Wallow, deceased. It was therefore necessary that the case-made be served upon each of them, or upon the attorneys of record for each of them. Grimes v. West, 47 Okla. 436, 149 P. 135; Phillips v. Hackler, 49 Okla. 586, 153 P. 863; Barrows et al. v. Cassidy et al., 113 Okla. 114, 239 P. 581.

¶5 Defendant practically concedes the correctness of both rules above announced but seeks to evade their force and effect by the contention that the provisions of chapter 219, S. L. 1917 (Comp. Stat. 1921, sec. 782), has changed the rule and effected a new and different procedure on appeal; that notice in open court of intention to appeal automatically makes all parties to the record in the trial court parties of record in this court. The language of the act relied on is clear. No relaxing of the rule requiring service of the case-made is apparent, and that no such intention existed has already been determined by this court. In Mires v. Hogan, 79 Okla. 233, 192 P. 811 this court said:

"If this case had come here on petition in error supported by a case-made, it would be important to
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hazel v. Edwards
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • September 23, 1947
    ...court's judgment. The contention is correct and the appeal must be dismissed. Mires v. Hogan, 79 Okla. 233, 192 P. 811; Huddleston v. Wallow, 117 Okla. 259, 246 P. 585; City of Sapulpa v. Young, 147 Okla. 179, 296 P. 418; Taliaferro v. Ballard, 188 Okla. 465, 111 P.2d 184; McDonald v. Harro......
  • Huddleston v. Wallow
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1926

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT