Board of Commissioners of Caddo County v. Dietrich
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CADDO COUNTY v. DIETRICH Et Al.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of 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. Dinkier, Louis E. McKnight, W. E. Turner, A. Youngheim, Frank Carpenter, J. A. Menefee, and A. N. Benedict”
*268 —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 ro^ view said judgment. This contention seems to be well supported by the authorities.
Weisbender v. School District, 24 Okla. 173 , 103 Pac. 639 , and Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Hall, 40 Okla. 447 , 139 Pac. 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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.