Lamb v. Young
| Decision Date | 14 September 1909 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 127 |
| Citation | 104 P. 335,24 Okla. 614,1909 OK 225 |
| Parties | LAMB et al v. YOUNG et al. (BRANNON, Intervener.) |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Record--Motion to Discharge Attachment. A motion to discharge property from an attachment is not part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions or case-made.
Error from District Court, Custer County; James R. Tolbert, Judge.
Action by C. H. Lamb and another against P. K. Young and another, in which action W. I. Brannon intervened. An attachment was issued and levied upon lots, and, the same having been discharged, plaintiffs bring error. Writ of error dismissed.
Andrew J. Welch, for plaintiffs in error.
Geo. T. Webster, for defendants in error.
¶1 This was an action, commenced by the plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, against P. K. Young and Flora Young, as defendants, in the district court of Custer county; the plaintiffs alleging, in substance, that the defendants were indebted to them in the sum of $ 50 on account of a commission due them for the sale of real estate. An attachment was issued and levied upon lots 25 and 26, in block 66, in the town of Clinton, in said county, and service of summons was sought to be procured upon the defendants by publication. After the attachment was levied the defendant in error, W. I. Brannon, intervened and set up ownership of the lots, and filed a motion to discharge the same from the attachment levied upon them in the suit against the Youngs. The court below sustained the motion to discharge the lots from the attachment, and the case was brought here by the plaintiffs upon a certified transcript of the record, without making the motion to discharge the attachment a part thereof by bill of exceptions or case-made.
¶2 It has been held by this court many times that motions to discharge attachments and proceedings of that kind are not part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions or case-made. As the action of the court below in sustaining the motion to discharge is the only error assigned, the certified transcript of the record is not sufficient to present it to this court for review.
¶3 The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
¶4 All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savoy Oil Co. v. Emery
...roll. London v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 68 Okla. 59, 171 P. 719; School District v. Vinsant, 27 Okla. 731, 113 P. 714; Lamb v. Young, 24 Okla. 614, 104 P. 335; Mires v. Hogan, 79 Okla. 233, 192 P. 811; Putman v. Western Bk. Supply Co., 38 Okla. 152, 132 P. 483; Masoner v. Bell, 20 Okla. 618, ......
-
Tribal Dev. Co. v. Brothers
...et al. v. Incorporated Town of Yeager, 23 Okla. 128, 99 P. 906; Davis v. Lammers et al., 23 Okla. 338, 100 P. 514; Lamb et al. v. Young et al., 24 Okla. 614, 104 P. 335; Leforce v. Andrews et al., 4 Indian Terr. 96, 69 S.W. 812. In the case last cited, the United States Court of Appeals for......
-
Scott v. Woods Lumber Co.
...1; Craig v. Greer, 33 Okla. 302, 124 P. 1096; Green et al. v. Incorporated Town of Yeager, 23 Okla. 128, 99 P. 906; Land et al. v. Young et al., 24 Okla. 614, 104 P. 335; Nelson et al. v. Glenn et al., 28 Okla. 575, 115 P. 471; Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros. et al., 28 Okla. 525, 114......
-
Univ. Realty Co. v. English
...Merchants' Exch. Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 P. 342; Green et al. v. Incorporated Town of Yeager, 23 Okla. 128, 99 P. 906; Lamb et al. v. Young et al., 24 Okla. 614, 104 P. 335. ¶4 What has been said relative to the foregoing assignments of error is likewise applicable to the third. This leaves f......