Case ID: okla_49/html/0267-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KANE, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CADDO COUNTY v. DIETRICH et al.
    
    No. 7269.
    Opinion Filed October 12, 1915.
    (152 Pac. 341.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Pairfcies—Dismissal. All persons against whom a joint judgment has been rendered must be made parties ■to a proceeding in error to reverse such judgment, and a failure to join any of them, either as plaintiffs or defendants, is ground for the dismissal of the cause.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District Court, Caddo County; J. T. Johnson, Judge.
    
    Action by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Caddo against W. F. Dietrich and others.
    Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
    
      Theo. Pruett, Asst. Co. Atty., for plaintiff in error. '
    
      A. J. Morris, for defendants in error. •
   KANE, C. J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the proceeding in error, filed by the defendants in error for the reason, among other things, that:

“The judgment from which the appeal herein is prosecuted is a joint -judgment, and O. M. Hite, J. A. Dinkier, Louis E. McKnight, W. E. Turner, A. Youngheim, Frank Carpenter, J. A. Menefee, and A. N. Benedict”

—who are parties thereto, have not been served with the case-made herein and are not parties to the proceeding, and this court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to ro^ view said judgment. This contention seems to be well supported by the authorities.

Weisbender v. School District, 24 Okla. 173, 103 Pac. 639, and Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Hall, 40 Okla. 447, 139 Pac. 305, cited by counsel for defendants in error in support of their motion, seem to be entirely in point. The motion to dismiss is not resisted by the plaintiff in error.

For the reason stated the motion to dismiss is sustained.

All the Justices concur.