Case ID: okla_128/html/0087-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RILEY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HEWITT OIL & GAS CO. et al. v. RAMSEY et al.
    No. 17188.
    Opinion Filed Nov. 22, 1927.
    (Syllabus.)
    Prohibition — Right to Relief — Absence of Brief by Respondents.
    Where in an original action petitioners show apparent right of relief, and respondents, after due notice, default and fail to brief, relief as merited will be granted.
    Original action for writ of prohibition by the Hewitt Oil & Gas Company et al. against R. H. Ramsey and J. W. Bolen, district judge.
    Writ granted.
    Dolman & Dyer and Busby & Harrell, for petitioners.
    Note. — See 32 Cyc. p. 629 (Anno).
   RILEY, J.

On February 17, 1926, petitioner filed an original action in this court seeking a writ of prohibition directed to R. I-I. Ramsey and to J. W. Bolen, judge of the district court of the 7th Judicial District, commanding them to desist and refrain from further proceedings in a certain action, cause No. 7796, wherein R. H. Ramsey filed on January 21, 1926, his petition in the district court of Pontotoc County, seeking an injunction to restrain petitioners herein from certain acts, and wherein the said district judge issued a temporary restraining order and served the same upon these petitioners in Carter county. The subject-matter of the suit in Pontotoc county, cause No. 7796, is an action in personam and transitory, and petitioners are nonresidents of Pontotoc county and nonresidents of said judicial district. Petitioners plead, further, under Continental Gin Co. v. Arnold. 66 Okla. 132, 167 Pac. 613, and Culver v. Diamond, 64 Okla. 271, 167 Pac. 223. that the jurisdiction and venue to determine injunctive matters concerning the Hewitt Oil & Gas Company, a corporation, is vested exclusively within the district court of Carter county. Welch v. Ladd, 29 Okla. 93, 116 Pac. 573; Hurst v. Hannah, 107 Okla. 3, 229 Pac. 163; Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U S. 298, 25 L. Ed. 473; C. R. I. & P. v. Wynkoop (Kan.) 85 Pac. 595

The petitioners have filed their brief, but respondents have wholly failed to file briefs. From an examination of petitioners’ application and brief, we find they are entitled to the writ as prayed for. Let the writ issue.

BRANSON. O. J.. MASON. V. C. J.. and HARRTSON. PHELPS. LESTER. HUNT, CLARK, and HEFNER, JJ, concur.