TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tucker v. Miller

TUCKER v. MILLER Et Al.

Tucker v. Miller, 1916 OK 207, 155 P. 591
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 15, 1916
Docket
No. 4652
Judges
Watts
Citations
155 P. 5911916 OK 20755 Okla. 6311916 Okla. LEXIS 206
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal—Death of Party — Failure to Revive. The case-made was filed here July 22, 1914. One of the plaintiffs died August 9,1914, written notice 'of which was served on counsel for defendant November 9, 1915, on which date counsel for plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Suggestion of death was filed in this court by counsel for plaintiffs November 10, 1915, Defendant has had a reasonable time to revive since notice of death and motion to dismiss were served on his counsel, but has taken no steps. The appeal should be dismissed. (Syllabus by Watts, 0.)
Summary
Error from County Court, Noble County; L. B. Robinson, Judge. Action by Milton Miller and another against A. W. Tucker. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant 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 — Watts

*632 Opinion by WATTS, C.

This case originated before a justice of the peace of Noble county, where judgment went for plaintiffs, and on appeal to the county court the result was the same. The 'judgment was for $20, the value of a calf. Defendant appealed. The parties will be referred to as below. The case-made was filed here July 22, 1914. Milton Miller, one of the plaintiffs, died August 9, 1914, written notice of which was served on counsel for defendant November 9, 1915. Motion to dismiss appeal was filed in this court December 9, 1915, by counsel for plaintiffs. Suggestion of death was filed in this court by counsel for plaintiffs November 10, 1915. Section 5294, Rev. Laws 1910, provides:

“An order to revive- an action, in the names of the representatives or successor of a plaintiff, may be made forthwith, but shall not be made without the consent of the defendant, after the expiration of one year from the time the order might have been first made; but where the defendant shall also have died, or his powers have ceased, in the meantime, the order of revivor on both sides maybe made in the period limited in the last section: Provided, that where the death of the party is not known or for other unavoidable reasons the court may permit the revivor within a reasonable time thereafter.”

This case has not been revived. Defendant has had a reasonable time to revive since notice of death and motion to dismiss were sérved on his counsel, but has taken no steps.

The appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

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

1923: 11926: 11947: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chouteau v. Hoss1926 OK 471, 246 P. 844
  2. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Ouart1947 OK 117, 192 P.2d 698
  3. Edwards v. Asher1923 OK 575, 217 P. 869

Most recent

  1. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Ouart1947 OK 117, 192 P.2d 698
  2. Chouteau v. Hoss1926 OK 471, 246 P. 844
  3. Edwards v. Asher1923 OK 575, 217 P. 869

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