Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916

Oklahoma Auto Supply Co. v. Mathey

Oklahoma Auto Supply Co. v. Mathey
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · Decided April 11, 1916 · PER CURIAM.
157 P. 55; 53 Okla. 391; 1916 OK 438; 1916 Okla. LEXIS 418

Oklahoma Auto Supply Co. v. Mathey

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This was an action of replevin brought in a justice court, and from there appealed to the superior court of Muskogee county. At the trial, *392 after plaintiff had introduced its evidence, defendant Mathey and the interpleader, Von Unworth, demurred thereto, which demurrer was sustained. Motion for a new trial being overruled, plaintiff brings error to this court.

Motion to dismiss the proceeding in error has been ñled, one of the grounds thereof being that no notice for the settlement of the case-made was served upon Mathey and Von Unworth, and that such notice had not been waived. An examination of the case-made supports the motion, for it does not appear that such notice of settlement of case-made was served; nor that the suggestion of amendment requested by said Mathey and Von Unworth was incorporated into the case-made, no.r that they were present, either in person or by counsel, at the settlement of said case-made. The appeal being by case-made, because of plaintiff in error’s failure to comply with the statutory provisions as to service thereof, it must be dismissed. Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. State Nat. Bank, 25 Okla. 128, 105 Pac. 647; Wood v. Jones, 32 Okla. 640, 122 Pac. 678; Brown v. Marks, 45 Okla. 711, 146 Pac. 707; Foral v. Bogle, 44 Okla. 805, 146 Pac. 706; Comanche Mercantile Co. v. Northwestern Knitting Co., 54 Okla. -, 153 Pac. 1158.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.