Vaught v. Miners' Bank of Joplin

• Decision Date: 13 September 1910
• Citation: 111 P. 214,27 Okla. 100,1910 OK 289
• Parties: VAUGHT v. MINERS' BANK OF JOPLIN.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

111 P. 214

27 Okla. 100, 1910 OK 289

VAUGHT v. MINERS' BANK OF JOPLIN.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

September 13, 1910

Syllabus by the Court.

All persons against whom a joint judgment has been rendered must be made parties to a proceeding to reverse such judgment, and a failure to join any of them, either as plaintiffs or defendants, is ground for the dismissal of the case.

Error from District Court, Stephens County; J. R. Tolbert, Judge.

Action by the Miners' Bank of Joplin against G. W. Vaught. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Dismissed.

Gilbert & Bond and Bledsoe & Little, for plaintiff in error.

Devereux & Hildreth, Robert Burns, and H. B. Lockett, for defendant in error.

KANE J.

A motion to dismiss the appeal in the above-entitled cause has heretofore been overruled; but, upon a more careful examination of the authorities upon motion to rehear motion to dismiss, we are of the opinion that the motion ought to be sustained. Said action below was by the Miners' Bank as plaintiff, versus G. W. Vaught, defendant, to recover on a promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage given to secure payment of the same. The petition alleged: "That the defendant G. W. Vaught did make, execute, and deliver to the Bank of Comanche, Comanche, Ind. T., a certain promissory note for $4,200; that said note was due on the 31st day of August, 1906; that before the maturity thereof the said plaintiff for a valuable consideration bought said note from the Bank of Comanche; and that this plaintiff is now the owner and holder of said note." It seems that a receiver was appointed for the Bank of Comanche, who upon his own motion was made a party defendant. The cause was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict "against both the Bank of Comanche and G. W. Vaught, defendants, and each of them," upon which judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Miners' Bank, against G. W. Vaught and Robt. Burns, as receiver of the Bank of Comanche, and a decree was rendered foreclosing the mortgage. Vaught alone instituted proceedings in error in this court without making the receiver a party.

In Strange et al. v. Crismon, 22 Okl. 841, 98 P. 937, it was held that: "A petition in error by two of three defendants, against whom judgment was entered jointly for the recovery of a specified sum, to which the other defendant is neither made a party plaintiff nor defendant in error, must be dismissed for want of necessary ...