Case Name: SETON v. HUDSON
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-05-14
Citations: 31 Okla. 820
Docket Number: No. 2409
Parties: SETON v. HUDSON.
Judges: Ah the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 820–821

Head Matter:
SETON v. HUDSON.
No. 2409.
Opinion Filed May 14, 1912.
(124 Pac. 1.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Parties—Dismissal. A petition in error by one of several defendants against whom judgment was entered jointly for the recovery of a specified sum to which the other defendants are neither made parties plaintiff nor defendant in error must be dismissed for want of necessary parties.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
' Error from Pawnee County Court; N. B. McNeil, Judge.
Action by Frank Hudson against Clark Seton and others. From an order denying a motion by defendant Clark Seton to set aside a judgment against defendants, he brings error.
Dis-, missed.
P. W. Cress, for plaintiff in error.
W. L. Bagleton, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
DUNN, J.
This case presents error from the county court of Pawnee county. October 8, 1909, the said, court rendered a joint judgment against the Arkansas Valley & Western Railway Company, the Arkansas Valley Townsite Company, H. C. Hanna, and Clark Seton, who were held liable upon a nonnegotiable promissory note. From an order of the court denying a motion of Clark Seton, one of the joint judgment debtors, to set aside the judgment entered, appeal has been lodged in this court.
The defendant in error now moves to dismiss the cause upon the ground of nonjoinder of proper parties. The record shows that the motion -which was denied was filed on behalf of defendant, Clark Seton, and time to make and serve case was granted to him alone, and the case-made was served upon the defendant in error, Frank Hudson, only, and that the time and place of settling and signing the 'Case-made was not served upon nor waived by any of the other defendants. Hence it follows from the uniform holding of this court in a large number of cases that the motion to dismiss must be sustained. See Bullen v. Hudson et al., ante, 124 Pac. 1; Saunders et al. v. Mullen et al., ante, 119 Pac. 963, and cases therein cited.
Ah the Justices concur.