TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Burt v. Thompson

Burt v. Thompson, 1911 OK 141, 115 P. 1016
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 9, 1911
Docket
No. 2019
Judges
Piayes
Citations
115 P. 10161911 OK 14129 Okla. 61911 Okla. LEXIS 222
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE — Jurisdiction of Appeals — Statutes—Sufficiency of Title. That portion of section 3, art. 1, c. 27, Sess. Laws of Okla. 1907-08, providing that ’ the county court shall have, concurrent with the district court, appellate jurisdiction of judgments of justices of the peace, not being correlated to the subject expressed in the title to the act, nor appearing to follow as a natural and legitimate complement, is in violation of section 57, art. 5, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, providing that every act of the Legislature shall embrace but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title, and is therefore unconstitutional, inoperative, and void; and the district court, by reason of sections 14 and 19 of article 7 of the Constitution, cannot acquire any jurisdiction on appeal from a judgment of a justice court. (Syllabus by the court.)
Summary
Error from District Court, Osage County; John J. Shea, Judge. Action between Herbert C. Burt and N. A. Thompson. .From the judgment before a justice, an appeal was taken to the district court to reverse the judgment of that court, and Burt brings error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Piayes

PIAYES, J.

This is an action of forcible entry and detainer, originally brought in a justice’s court of Osage county. From the judgment in that court, an appeal was taken to the district court qf that county. To reverse the judgment of the latter court, this proceeding in error is prosecuted.

One of the questions presented by this proceeding is identically the same as was considered and determined by the court in Holcomb v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 27 Okla. 667, 112 Pac. 1023 ; and upon the authority of that case the cause must be reversed and remanded, with direction to the district court to dismiss the appeal therein.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 21924: 119122026peak 1912 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cox v. Warford1912 OK 540, 126 P. 1026
  2. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McFarland1912 OK 2, 120 P. 559
  3. Harrell v. Suter1924 OK 627, 227 P. 403

Most recent

  1. Harrell v. Suter1924 OK 627, 227 P. 403
  2. Cox v. Warford1912 OK 540, 126 P. 1026
  3. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. McFarland1912 OK 2, 120 P. 559

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Holcomb v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 1910 OK 335, 112 P. 1023 24

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