Reynolds v. Frensley

• Decision Date: 09 April 1935
• Docket Number: Case Number: 22780
• Parties: REYNOLDS et al. v. FRENSLEY et al. SAME v. WILLIAMSON et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1935 OK 404

43 P.2d 86

171 Okla. 463

REYNOLDS et al. v. FRENSLEY et al.

SAME v. WILLIAMSON et al.

Case Number: 22780

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: April 9, 1935

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Duplicitous Appeal Dismissed.

Where the parties have undertaken by one appeal to reverse two or more judgments, this court will dismiss such an attempted appeal for duplicity.

Appeal from District Court, Stephens County; E. L. Richardson, Judge.

Action to quiet title by Tom R. Frensley, executor, and another, against Harry Reynolds, Lula Reynolds, Cruce Oil Company, and others; and action to quiet title to separate and distinct tract of land by Frankie V. Williamson and S. H. Williamson against same parties defendant. Judgment for plaintiffs in each action. Defendants Harry Reynolds, Lula Reynolds, I. E. Harwell, and Cruce Oil Company appeal by one case-made with two petitions in error attached. Appeal dismissed.

Reuel W. Little, for plaintiffs in error.

Sandlin & Winans and Stephen A. George, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The plaintiffs in error seek, by this appeal, a reversal of two separate and distinct judgments of the district court of Stephens county.

¶2 On August 2, 1929, Tom B. Frensley, executor, and another commenced an action in said court against the plaintiffs in error and others, as defendants, to quiet title to 80 acres of land; and on December 7, 1929, Frankie V. Williamson and another instituted an action against the same parties defendant to quiet title to another and separate tract. The cases were docketed separately, and no order of consolidation was entered by the trial court. These cases were set for trial at the same time, and, by agreement, the court heard the evidence in the two cases together. Separate judgments were entered in the two causes; a separate motion for new trial was filed in each; and separate judgments were rendered overruling the motions for new trial. The plaintiffs in error have filed in this court one case-made containing the pleadings, proceedings, and evidence in both causes, and have attached thereto two separate petitions in error, undertaking by this appeal to review the action of the trial court upon the two causes.

¶3 194, this court said:

"Where the parties have undertaken by one appeal to reverse two or more judgments, the appellate court has uniformly dismissed the appeal."

¶4 The opinion rendered in the Stumpff Case has been followed in the following cases: Callahan v. Nida, 86 Okla. 279, 207 P. 966; First Nat. Bank v. Ackors, 109 Okla. 228, 235 P. 185; Howe v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 114 Okla. 118, 248 P. 318; Harris v. Farrar, 121 Okla. 213, 247 P. 353; Key v. M., K. & T. R. Co., 135 Okla....