Case ID: okla_121/html/0213-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER OURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HARRIS v. FARRAR.
    No. 16447
    Opinion Filed Sept. 15, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied June 22, 1926.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error-~Bismissal-DupIicitous~ Appeals.
    Where it is attempted to bring into this court two or more separate and distinct cases not consolidated by one case-made and ~me petition in error the appeal is duplicitous and will be dismissed.
    Note.-See under (1) 4 0. J. p. 572~ §2380.
    Error from District Court, Usage County; Jesse J. Worten. Judge.
    Action betweep Monroe Harris and F. W. Farrar. From the judgment, the former brings error.
    Dismissed.
    Phillips J. Dicke:son, for plaintiff in er~ o'~.
    Grinsteacl, Scott, Hamilton & Gross, for defendant in error.
   PER OURIAM.

This case is appealed from the district court of Osage county, and defendant in error moves to dismiss on the ground of duplicity. This appeal embraces three separate and distinct cases, one of which is in no wise related to tile other two. Case No. 7281 is an action brought by Monroe Harris by F. W. Farrar, for an accounting and to cancel an $8,000 mortgage. Fairer ffiecl an answer and cross-petition seeking to foreclose the mortgage. Case No. 7432 is an action brought by F. IV. Farrar v. Monroe Harris to foreclose a mortgage for $10 000. These two cases were consolidated by order of the trial court. Ca~e No. 7433 was an action by Wah-t3-Sah an Incompetent, by F. W. Farrar, Guardian v. Monroe Harris to foreclose a certain mort-ga'4e in the sum of $700. This case has no relation whatever to either of the other two cases, and was not consolidated therewith. A separate judgment was rendered in the case and separate orders made thorein all the way through. All three oi these cases are attempted to be brought into this court on one case-made and one petition in error.

This appeal is c]earfy duplicitous and is dismissed. Harper v. Stumpf, 84 Okla. 187, 203 Pac. 104; Callahan v. Nida, 86 Okla. 279, 207 Pac. 968.