Maine v. Edmonds, Case Number: 5248

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtHARDY, J.
Citation58 Okl. 645,160 P. 483,1916 OK 1063
Docket NumberCase Number: 5248
Decision Date10 October 1916

1916 OK 1063
160 P. 483
58 Okl.


Case Number: 5248

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 10, 1916

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 The law does not generally recognize a middle name, but looks rather to the identity of the individual, and when this identity is established, this is all that the law requires.

The omission of or a mistake in the use of an initial does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, where the right party is actually served with process and has appeared in court.

By the doctrine of idem sonans, two names, though spelled differently, if they sound alike are regarded as the same. Even slight difference in their pronunciation is unimportant. If the attentive ear finds difficulty in distinguishing the two names when they are pronounced, they are within the rule.

An action brought in the courts of this state, upon a judgment rendered in a United States commissioner's court in the Indian territory, is governed as to the time in which an action thereon will be barred by the laws in force at the time the judgment was rendered.

Milton Brown, of Oklahoma City, and L. S. Fawcett, of Holdenville, for plaintiffs in error.

Crump & Skinner, of Holdenville, for defendant in error.


¶1 Plaintiffs in error as plaintiffs commenced an action in a justice court of Hughes county, against the defendant in error, to recover upon a judgment rendered against him in favor of plaintiffs in the United States commissioner's court at South McAlester, Ind. T. The parties occupy the same position here which they occupied in the trial court, and will be referred to accordingly. The defendant demurred to plaintiffs' bill of particulars, which demurrer was overruled, and the defendant declined to plead further, whereupon judgment was rendered against him and he appealed to the county court. He again insisted upon his demurrer in the county court, and same was sustained. Plaintiffs declined to plead further, whereupon judgment was rendered, dismissing the action at their cost, from which they prosecute error.

¶2 The only question presented is whether plaintiffs' bill of particulars states a cause of action. They alleged the beginning of the original action in the United States commissioner's court at South McAlester, Ind. T., the issuance and service of summons upon defendant, and the rendition of the judgment on November 12, 1903. A certified copy of the transcript of said judgment is attached to the bill of particulars. Plaintiffs also alleged a state of facts showing jurisdiction of the commissioner's court to render said judgment, and then plead section 4487, Mansfield's Digest of the Laws of Arkansas (Ind. T. Ann. Stat. § 2954), limiting the time in which actions may be brought upon judgments. They then allege that said section was in force at the time this suit was begun, and that it governed as to the limitation of time in which a suit might be brought on said judgment. They further allege the amount due thereon, and that same was unpaid. No execution was issued upon said judgment, neither was there a transcript of the same filed in the United States Court for the Indian Territory at South McAlester, or elsewhere in said Indian Territory.

¶3 The present action is against C. R. Edmonds. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Tucker v. Dominion, 106
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • February 23, 2010 a recognition of this. Id. In employing the doctrine of idem sonans,4 the entire name is taken into account. See Maine v. Edmonds, 1916 OK 1063, 58 Okla. 645, 160 P. 483. If two names are pronounced similarly in the English language, a variance in their spelling is immaterial. Id. at ¶ 4......
  • Ferguson-McKinney Dry Goods Co. v. Garrett, (No. 399-3744.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • June 6, 1923 the point are the opinions of that same court in the cases of Patterson v. Rousney, 58 Okl. 185, 159 Pac. 636, and Maine v. Edmonds, 58 Okl. 645, 160 Pac. It is quite clear that the Supreme Page 741 Court of the present state of Oklahoma holds that judgments recovered in what was formerl......
  • Collingsworth v. Hutchison, 28237.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • January 17, 1939 no injury in holding names of similar sound to be idem sonans. The rule has been thus applied by this court in Maine v. Edmonds, 1916, 58 Okl. 645, 160 P. 483, where it was held that "Edmonds" and "Edmunds" are idem sonans. But in cases involving service by publication, where property ri......
  • Thomas v. Trimble, 18444.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • April 24, 1928
    ...Okl. 25, 193 P. 876; Foreman v. Marks et al., 87 Okl. 205, 209 P. 1040; Patterson v. Rousney, 58 Okl. 185, 159 P. 636; Maine v. Edmonds, 58 Okl. 645, 160 P. In the case of Sandlin et al. v. Barker et al., 95 Okl. 113, 218 P. 519, in syllabus 5 thereof it is said: "The statute of limitations......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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