Case ID: okla_58/html/0653-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LONG v. BEARDEN et al. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. LONG et al.
    
    Nos. 8242, 8305.
    Opinion Filed October 10, 1916.
    (160 Pac. 467.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Parties—Joint Judgment. Syllabus same as in Michael v. Isom, 43 Olcla. 70S, 143 Pac. 1063.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District Court, Okfuskee County; Geo. C. Crump, Judge.
    
    Action between Israel Long and J. S. Bearden and others. From the judgment, Long brings error. Action between the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company and Israel, Long and others. From the judgment, the Fidelity & Guaranty Company brings -error. Causes consolidated in Supreme Court.
    .Heard on motions to dismiss. Order consolidating causes set aside, and motion to dismiss overruled in the latter cause, and sustained in the former.
    
      John Cwruthers and Alex Johnston, for Israel Long. C. T. Huddleston and J. B. Patterson, for J. S. Bear-den.
    
      R. A. Hockensmith, for United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
   PER CURIAM.

Motion to dismiss appeal, which is from a money judgment for $1,785, is based upon the grounds: (1) That the judgment rendered in the lower court was a joint judgment against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company ahd H. G. Malot, and that Malot has not been made a party to the proceedings in error; (2) that no case-made was ever served on Malot. After this motion to dismiss had been filed, these causes were consolidated by order of this court upon motion filed.

The case-made in No. 8242 was served upon Malot’s attorney, and Malot has been made a party defendant in error. It will therefore be seen that the objections urged for dismissal of cause No. 8242 are untenable. But in case No. 8305 said Malot was not made a party to this appeal, and, since the judgment was a joint judgment against Malot and the surety company, he should have been joined in the appeal. Michael v. Isom, 43 Okla. 708, 143 Pac. 1053.

It would therefore seem that the motion to dismiss should be overruled in case No. 8242, and it is so ordered; and that the order consolidating these causes be set aside and cause No. 8305 be dismissed pursuant to the motion.