AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Advocates
Judges

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CADDO COUNTY v. DIETRICH et al.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Parties — Dismissal. All persons against whom a joint judgment has been rendered must be made parties to a proceeding in error to reverse such judgment, and a failure to join any of them, either as plaintiffs or defendants, is ground for the dismissal of the cause.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

KANE, C. J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the proceeding in error, filed by the defendants in error for the reason, among other things, that:

"The judgment from which the appeal herein is prosecuted is a joint judgment, and O.M. Hite, J.A. Dinkler, Louis E. McKnight, W.E. Turner, A. Youngheim, Frank Carpenter, J.A. Menefee, and A.N. Benedict"

— who are parties thereto, have not been served with the case-made herein and are not parties to the proceeding, and this court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to review said judgment. This contention seems to be well supported by the authorities.

Weisbender v. School District, 24 Okla. 173, 103 P. 639, and Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Hall, 40 Okla. 447, 139 P. 305, cited by counsel for defendants in error in support of their motion, seem to be entirely in point. The motion to dismiss is not resisted by the plaintiff in error.

For the reason stated the motion to dismiss is sustained.

All the Justices concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CADDO COUNTY v. DIETRICH
(Oct 12, 1915)