TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lamb v. Young

Lamb Et Al v. Young Et Al. (Brannon, Intervener.)

Lamb v. Young, 1909 OK 225, 104 P. 335
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 14, 1909
Docket
No. 127
Judges
Kane
Citations
104 P. 3351909 OK 22524 Okla. 6141909 Okla. LEXIS 80
Disposition
Writ of error dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL- AND ERROR — Record—Motion to Discharge Attachment. A motion .to discharge property from an attachment is not part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions or case-made. (Syllabus bv the Court.)
Summary
Error from District Court,: Custer County; James U. Tolbert, Judge. Action by C. H. Lamb and another against P. E. Young and another, in which action W. I. Brannon intervened. An attachment was issued and levied upon lots, and;, the same having been discharged, plaintiffs bring 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 — Kane

Kane, C. J.

This was an action, commenced by the plaintiffs in error, plaintiffs below, against P. K. Young and Flora Young, as defendants, in the district court of Custer county;the plaintiffs alleging, in substance, that the defendants were, indebted to.them in the sum of $50 on account of a. commission due them for the sale of real estate. An attachment was issued .and levied upon lots 25 and 26, in block 66, ,in the town of Clinton, in said county, and service of summons was sought to be procured upon the defendants by publication. After the attachment was levied the defendant in error, W. I. Brannon, intervened and set up ownership of the lots, and filed a motion to discharge the sáme from the attachment levied upon them in the suit against the Youngs. The court below,sustained the motion to discharge the lots from the attachment, and the case was brought here by the plaintiffs upon a certified transcript of the record, without making the motion to discharge the attachment a part thereof by bill of exceptions or case-made. ,- , It has been- held by this court many times .that motions to discharge attachments and -proceedings - of that kind- are not part of the record, unless made so by bill of exceptions or, case-made. As the áction of the court below in sustaining the motion to discharge is the only error assigned, the certified transcript of • the record is not sufficient to present it to this court for review.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1911: 21912: 31913: 21916: 11918: 11923: 11925: 11928: 11931: 11935: 31937: 11945: 119112026peak 1912 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tribal Development Co. v. White Bros.1911 OK 117, 114 P. 736
  2. Stonebraker-Zea Cattle Co. v. Hilton1912 OK 478, 124 P. 1062
  3. Savoy Oil Co. v. Emery1928 OK 572, 277 P. 1029
  4. Harris v. Tupeker1923 OK 990, 220 P. 617
  5. First Nat. Bank of McAlester v. McIntosh1925 OK 276, 237 P. 443
  6. Craig v. Greer, Sheriff1912 OK 342, 124 P. 1096

Most recent

  1. Hawkins v. Teurman1945 OK 307, 163 P.2d 551
  2. Jones v. Welborn1937 OK 496, 71 P.2d 955
  3. Savery v. Cochran1935 OK 1088, 51 P.2d 290
  4. Hill v. Oklahoma Life Ins. Co.1935 OK 803, 50 P.2d 320
  5. First Nat. Bank v. Spears1935 OK 744, 48 P.2d 234
  6. Bell v. Powell1931 OK 89, 299 P. 442

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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