Miller v. Oklahoma State Bank
MILLER Et Al. v. OKLAHOMA STATE BANK 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, J.
The question herein arises upon a motion by the defendants in error, E. C. Johnson .and S. H. Johnson partners, to dismiss the appeal, as to them, for the .reason that they are not necessary or proper parties thereto. The action originally was one wherein the defendant in error the Oklahoma State Bank was plaintiff and the plaintiffs in error herein were defendants. The movants herein intervened, alleging that they were entitled to judgment against the Millers upon a promissory note and the foreclosure of a mortgage upon the property *154 involved in the suit between the bank and the Millers. Thereafter the Millers answered, claiming affirmative relief against the movants. Upon the cause coming on for trial, the movants dismissed their petition in intervention, and the Millers offered no evidence tending to sustain the allegations upon which-they based their claim for affirmative relief, and no judgment was rendered in the cause which in any wise affected the-controversy between the Millers and the Johnsons. Under this statement of facts, the Johnsons are neither necessary nor proper parties to a proceeding in error, instituted by the Millers.
Their motion, therefore, to dismiss must be 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 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.