Skelly Oil Co. v. Globe Oil Co.
Citation | 87 Okla. 225,209 P. 321,1922 OK 246 |
Decision Date | 18 July 1922 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 12771 |
Parties | SKELLY OIL CO. v. GLOBE OIL CO. et al. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Contents of Record--Evidence on Motion to Discharge Receiver.
The evidence introduced to support a motion to discharge a receiver is no part of the record, and cannot be considered by this court on an appeal by transcript although copied therein.
2. Same--Review--Dismissal.
Upon an appeal from an order refusing to discharge a receiver, the question presented for review is whether the court erred upon the evidence introduced to discharge the receiver, and where a party appeals by transcript from such order and the evidence is not before this court for review, the appeal presents no question reviewable by this court and will be dismissed.
3. Same--Time for Appeal--Refusal to Discharge Receiver.
In order to review the action of the district court in refusing to discharge a receiver, the petition in error must be filed in this court within ten days as provided in section 4986. Revised Laws 1910.
4. Same--Amending Petition in Error.
When a party seeks the reversal of an order of the court refusing to discharge a receiver, and presents his appeal within ten days by filing a petition in error, and transcript attached thereto, he cannot after the ten days from the rendition of said judgment, amend his petition in error by filing an amended petition in error and attaching thereto a case-made, and confer jurisdiction upon this court to review the question presented in the amended petition in error or case-made.
Error from District Court, Tulsa County; W. B. Williams, Judge.
Action by the Skelly Oil Company against the Globe Oil Company and others. From refusal of court to discharge receiver, plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.
F. E. Riddle, for plaintiff in error.
William F. Tucker and Hulette F. Aby, for defendants in error.
¶1 This action originated in the district court of Tulsa county by plaintiff in error filing a petition to compel specific performance of the sale of an oil and gas lease and the cross-petition of defendant in error to foreclose a trust deed to said oil and gas lease, to secure the payment of a debt and the appointment of receiver. Upon notice and hearing the court appointed a receiver; from said order the plaintiff prosecuted an appeal to this court, and the order of the district court appointing a receiver was affirmed by this court in the case of Skelly Oil Co. v. Globe Oil Co., 82 Okla. 214, 200 P. 537.
¶2 Thereafter the plaintiff in error filed in the district court of Tulsa county a motion to discharge the receiver and permit plaintiff to retain the property under bond. Upon the hearing of this motion evidence was introduced, and the court on the 17th day of October, 1921, denied said motion. Plaintiff in error appealed from said order of the court and filed its petition in error in this court with transcript attached thereto on October 27, 1921. Thereafter, on November 16, 1921, by permission of this court, the plaintiff in error filed an amended petition in error with case-made attached.
¶3 The defendants in error have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. First, because the petition in error and transcript attached filed October 27, 1921, presents no question which this court has jurisdiction to review. It is first contended that the motion to discharge the receiver and the order denying said motion are no part of the record, and cannot be reviewed by transcript. Second, that the evidence taken upon said motion is no part of the record, and although copied in the transcript is no part of the transcript, and cannot be reviewed by this court, and without the evidence there is no question presented to this court for review. The plaintiff in error, however, contends that the motion to discharge the receiver and the order of the court denying the same are pleadings and part of the record in the case, and can be brought to this court by transcript. It will be unnecessary for us to decide this question. If we concede, for the purpose of this case, that the motion to discharge a receiver and the order denying the same are pleadings, and part of the record proper, we are in no better position, for there is nothing for this court to review, because the evidence introduced to support the motion is not a part of the record, and although copied in the transcript, is no part thereof and cannot be considered by the court. This court has never held the evidence introduced to support a motion of this kind is any part of the record proper, or that the same can...
To continue reading
Request your trial