TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Guinn v. Security State Bank

GUINN Et Al. v. SECURITY STATE BANK

Guinn v. Sec. State Bank, 1917 OK 531, 168 P. 804
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 6, 1917
Docket
No. 9343
Judges
Owen
Citations
168 P. 8041917 OK 53174 Okla. 1021917 Okla. LEXIS 232
Disposition
Overruled.
Syllabus
(Syllabus.) Appeal and Error — Abatement—Payment to Prevent Enforcement of Decree. Payment of a judgment to prevent sale under an order of sale to enforce a decree of foreclosure, is an involuntary payment and does not abate pending proceedings in 'error to reverse tbe judgment.
Summary
Action by tbe Security State Bank against W. T. Guinn and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. On motion to dismiss appeal.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Owen

OWEN, J.

Tbis case comes on at this time upon motion to dismiss tbe appeal. Tbe defendant in error secured a money judgment, in tbe trial court, and a decree of foreclosure of mortgage against tbe plaintiffs in error. Pending appeal in tbis-court, without supersedeas, an order of sale issued to enforce the judgment. Plaintiffs in error paid tbe judgment to prevent sale. Defendant in error moves to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that, tbe judgment having been fully paid, tbe issues involved -have become moot. In the cases cited in support of the motion there was a voluntary payment of tbe judgment or settlement of tbe issues.

A payment of tbe judgment to prevent sale under execution or order of sale is not a voluntary satisfaction of tbe judgment. An involuntary payment or satisfaction of judgment or decree cannot be construed as a release of errors assigned on appeal. 3 C. J. 675-678; O’Hara v. McConnell, 93 U. S. 150 , 23 L. Ed. 840 ; Erwin v. Lowry, 7 How, 172, 12 L. Ed. 655 ; Freight v. Wyand (Kan.) 99 Pac. 611 ; Auld v. Kimberlen, 7 Kan. 601 ; Kerr v. Reece, 27 Kan. 469 .

The motion to dismiss is overruled.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1932: 11935: 11990: 11995: 119322026peak 1932 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Grand River Dam Authority v. Eaton1990 OK 133, 803 P.2d 705
  2. Stites v. DUIT Const. Co., Inc.1995 OK 69, 903 P.2d 293
  3. Lucas v. First Nat. Bank of Pawnee1935 OK 318, 43 P.2d 752
  4. Murphy v. Fidelity Inv. Co.1932 OK 863, 17 P.2d 510

Most recent

  1. Stites v. DUIT Const. Co., Inc.1995 OK 69, 903 P.2d 293
  2. Grand River Dam Authority v. Eaton1990 OK 133, 803 P.2d 705
  3. Lucas v. First Nat. Bank of Pawnee1935 OK 318, 43 P.2d 752
  4. Murphy v. Fidelity Inv. Co.1932 OK 863, 17 P.2d 510

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U.S. 150 (1876) 49
Erwin v. Lowry, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 172 (1849) 63
Kerr v. Reece, 27 Kan. 469 (1882) 12
Auld v. Kimberlin, 7 Kan. 601 (1871) 11
Feight v. Wyandt, 99 P. 611 (Kan. 1909) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list