J.W. Ripey & Son v. Art Wall Paper Mill

• Decision Date: 16 November 1910
• Citation: 112 P. 1119,27 Okla. 600,1910 OK 338
• Parties: J. W. RIPEY & SON v. ART WALL PAPER MILL.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

112 P. 1119

27 Okla. 600, 1910 OK 338

J. W. RIPEY & SON v. ART WALL PAPER MILL.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

November 16, 1910

Syllabus by the Court.

Section 6075, Comp. Laws Okl. 1909 (section 4742, Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903; section 4445, St. Okl. 1893), does not authorize the successor in office of a judge, where a vacancy is occasioned by death, to sign and settle a case-made in a cause tried by his predecessor, when such trial was had prior to the passage of the act of March 9, 1910 (Sess. Laws 1910 p. 59).

The act entitled, "An act for taking the original record to the Supreme Court in cases of appeal in civil cases, and to prosecute appeals by case-made passed at the first session of the Second Legislative Assembly of the territory of Oklahoma" (St. 1893, p. 1187), was repealed by substitution by the subsequent adoption by the same Legislative Assembly of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The entering of an appearance by the defendant in error in a proceeding in error in this court does not waive the right to object on account of the signing and settling of a case-made by a judge unauthorized by law.

Under the law in force at the date of the trial in the lower court the judge who presided was the only person authorized to settle and sign a case-made, and such judge having died after the completion of the trial and before the case-made had been signed and settled, the defendant, without fault on his part was thereby deprived of his constitutional right to present a complete appeal to this court, and is thereby entitled to a new trial.

Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Joseph G. Lowe, Judge.

Action between J. W. Ripey & Son and the Art Wall Paper Mill. From the judgment, Ripey & Son bring error. Remanded, with instructions.

M Fulton, for plaintiff in error.

J. H. Grant and E. G. McAdams, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS J.

It is insisted by the counsel for defendant in error that this appeal should be dismissed for the reason that the case-made was not signed and settled by any judge authorized by law.

1. Section 4742, Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903 (St. Okl. 1893, § 4445; section 6075, Comp. Laws Okl. 1909), does not authorize the successor in office of a judge, where a vacancy is occasioned by death, to sign and settle a case-made in a cause tried by his predecessor, where such trial was had prior to the passage of act of March 9, 1910 (Sess. Laws 1910, p. 59). Tegler v. State, 3 Okl. Cr. 595, 107 P. 949.

2. An act of the first session of the Second Legislative Assembly is entitled "An act to provide for taking the original record to the Supreme Court in cases of appeal in civil cases and to prosecute cases by petition in error with case-made." We find the following note at page 1187 of the Statutes of Oklahoma Territory of 1893, relative to said act, to wit: "Towards the closing days of the last session of the Legislature, the opinion prevailed that a new Code of Civil Procedure would not be adopted. An act was therefore passed 'to regulate appeals and writs of error,' also an act 'in relation to liens of judgment rendered in probate court.' Afterward an entire code on 'civil procedure' was enacted. It specifically provides for appeals and writs of error; also regulates liens in courts of record. The codifying committee have concluded to publish both acts in this addenda, together with the act providing additional officers for the Legislature--which latter act the Supreme Court held to be illegal and void."

It is insisted by counsel for the defendant in error that the subsequent passing of the Code of Civil Procedure at the same session of the Legislature had the effect by substitution of repealing said act. The Code of Civil Procedure adopted was comprehensive and covered practically all the subjects comprehended by said act. See article 22, §§ 534 to 574, of the Code of Civil Procedure (sections 4732 to 4772, Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903).

It is further insisted by the defendant in error that said act is repealed, not only by substitution, but also by express provision. Section 4633, St. Okl. 1893 (chapter 66, § 754, of the Code of Civil Procedure), provides: "The provisions of this Code do not apply to proceedings in actions or suits pending, when it takes effect. They shall be conducted to final judgment or decree, in all respects, as if it had not been adopted; but the provisions of this Code shall apply after a judgment, order or decree, heretofore or hereafter rendered to the proceedings to enforce, vacate, modify or reverse it."

In Fritz v. Brown, 20 Okl. 263, 95 P. 437, this court said: "There are three modes of repealing a statute: By an express repeal, repeal by implication, and repeal by an act covering the same subject, which latter method is often called repeal by substitution. *** A repeal by substitution is effected where the latter of two acts covers the whole subject of the first, and plainly shows it was intended as a substitute for the first act." In Smock v. Farmers' Union State Bank, 22 Okl. 825, 98 P. 945, this court said: "House Bill No. 615 covers the entire grounds of said chapter 8, Wilson's Rev. & Ann. St. 1903, and of the four subsequent acts of the Legislature above referred to. It pertains to the same general subject-matter, and seeks to accomplish the same general purpose, and in the main is a re-enactment of those statutes in the same language, and we are therefore of the opinion that said act was intended by Legislature as a substitute for all the laws then existing upon the subject-matter dealt with in that act, and that said former laws were repealed by it." It is evident that the committee that codified that statute in 1893 had doubts as to said act being in effect. We think it is clear that said act was repealed by substitution, and was not in force in the territory of Oklahoma at the time of the erection of the state, and was therefore not extended in force in the state by virtue of section 2 of the schedule to the Constitution.

3. It is further insisted that the defendant in error, having entered a general appearance, waived the defect in the signing and settling of the case-made by a judge unauthorized by law. Such appearance waived any defect in the summons in error or of the service of the same, etc., and subjected the defendant in error to the jurisdiction of the court. It has been held both by this court and also by the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma that parties to the record cannot by stipulation, which is not approved by the judge, extend the time for making and serving case-made. Bettis v Cargile, 23 Okl. 301, 100 P. 436; Horner v. Christy, 4 Okl. 553, 46 P. 561. However, Atkins et al. v. Nordyke-Marmon Company, 60 Kan. 354, 56 P. 533, seems to settle this question against the contention of the plaintiff in error. That case was appealed...