Case Name: SNYDER v. ELLIOTT
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1910-07-12
Citations: 26 Okla. 856
Docket Number: No. 1640
Parties: SNYDER v. ELLIOTT.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 856–857

Head Matter:
SNYDER v. ELLIOTT.
No. 1640.
Opinion Filed July 12, 1910.
(110 Pac. 784.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Orders Appealable — Refusal to Dissolve Attachment. An order of the district court overruling a motion to discharge an attachment is not reviewable in the Supreme Court until a final judgment has been rendered in the case.
(Syllaibus 'by the Court.)
Error from District Court, Tulsa County; L. M. Poe, Judge.
Action by R. P. Elliott, as executor of the estate of Cornelius D. Perryman, deceased, against Peter Snyder. From an order denying defendant’s motion to dissolve an attachment, he brings error. On motion to dismiss.
Granted.
Tibbetts & Green, for plaintiff in error.
Biddison & Campbell and B. P. Elliott, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
DUNN, C. J.
This case presents error from the district court of Tulsa county, Olda., and is an appeal from an order of the district court refusing to dissolve an attachment. Counsel for defendant in error have filed a motion to disfniss the appeal, for the reason that no appeal or proceeding in error will lie from such an order. The motion must be sustained. See Snavely v. Abbott Buggy Co., 36 Kan. 106, 12 Pac. 522, wherein will be found a full discussion of this question; the court in the syllabus saying:
"An order of the district court overruling a motion to discharge an attachment is not reviewable in the Supreme Court until a final judgment has been rendered in the case. Brown v. Kimble, 5 Kan. 80; Edenfield v. Barnhart, 5 Kan. 225; Hottenstein v. Conard, 5 Kan. 249; Burton v. Boyd, 7 Kan. 17; Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124; R. R. v. Brown, 26 Kan. 456; Anderson v Bank, 27 Kan. 162; Brown v. R. R., 29 Kan. 189 ; Potter v. Payne, 31 Kan. 218 [1 Pac. 617]; K. R. M. Co. v. R. R., 31 Kan. 90 [1 Pac. 274; Miller v. Noyes, 34 Kan. 13 [7 Pac. 692]; Anderson v. Higgins, 35 Kan. 201 [10 Pac. 570]; Burch v. Adams, 40 Kan. 640 [20 Pac. 476]; Boyd v. Cook, 40 Kan. 676 [20 Pac. 477]."
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
All the Justices concur.