Mead v. Vance

• Decision Date: 02 June 1925
• Docket Number: Case Number: 15023
• Citation: 110 Okla. 167,1925 OK 448,236 P. 889
• Parties: MEAD v. VANCE.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1925 OK 448

236 P. 889

110 Okla. 167

MEAD v. VANCE.

Case Number: 15023

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 2, 1925

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error -- Defective Record of Judgment--Dismissal.

A record which fails to contain a copy of the final order or judgment sought to be reviewed and in which it is not made to appear that the same is of record in the trial court, presents no question to this court for determination and the appeal will be dismissed. (Meadors v. Johnson 27 Okla. 543, 112 P. 1121.)

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 5.

Error from District Court, Major County; James B. Cullison, Judge.

Action by A. M. Mead against R. Vance. From judgment in favor of the defendant, plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.

A. R. Hughes and C. K. Cary, for plaintiff in error.

John V. Roberts and Frank L. Wells, for defendant in error.

PINKHAM, C.

¶1 In this case the plaintiff in error seeks the reversal of a judgment of the trial court. The record, however, fails to show what, if any, judgment the court rendered upon the verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant in error. The transcript or case-made does not contain a copy of the final order or judgment rendered by the trial court. There appears in the transcript or case-made a statement of the court reporter to the effect that the court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury, but this treatment does not constitute a final judgment The record before us does not show any final judgment was ever rendered in the case or is of record in the trial court.

"A record which fails to contain a copy of the final order or judgment sought to be reversed and in which it is not made to appear that the same is of record in the trial court presents no question to this court for determination and the appeal will be dismissed." Meadors v. Johnson, 27 Okla. 543 117 P. 198; Courtney v. Moore, 51 Okla. 628, 151 P. 1178; Schuck v. Moore, 48 Okla. 533, 150 P. 461; In re Garland, 52 Okla. 585, 153 P. 153; Negin v. Picher Lumber Co., 77 Okla. 285, 186 P. 205.

¶2 In this state of the record we think the appeal should be dismissed.

¶3 By the Court: It is so ordered.

¶4 Note.--See under (1) 3 C. J. D. 613; 4 C. J. p. 165.