Case Name: MEAD v. VANCE
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1925-06-02
Citations: 110 Okla. 167
Docket Number: No. 15023
Parties: MEAD v. VANCE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
MEAD v. VANCE.
No. 15023
Opinion Filed June 2, 1925.
Appeal and Error — Defective Record of Judgment — Dismissal.
A record which fails to contain a copy of the final order or judgment sought to be reviewed and in which it is not made to ■appear that the same is of record in the trial court, presents no question to this court for determination and the appeal will be dismissed. (Meadors v. Johnson 27 Okla. 543, 112 Pac. 1121. )
(Syllabus by Pinkham, O.)
Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 5.
Error from District Court, Major County; James B. Cullison, Judge.
Action by A. M. Mead against R. Vance. From judgment in favor of the defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Note. — See under ill 3 C. J. n. 613; 4 C. J. n. 165.
Dismissed.
A. R. Hughes and O. K. Cary, for plaintiff in error.
John V. Roberts and Frank L. Wells, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
PINKBDAM, O.
In this ease the plaintiff in error seeks the reversal of a judgment of the trial court. The record, however, fails to Shaw: what, if any, judgment the court rendered upon the verdict of the jury in favor of the defendant in error. The transcript or case-made does not contain a copy of the final order or judgment rendered, by the trial court. There appears in the transcript • or case-made a statement of the court reporter to the effect that the court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury, but this treatment does hot constitute a final judgment The record before us does not show any final judgment was ever rendered in the case or is of record in the trial court.
"A record which fails to contain a copy of the final order or judgment sought to be reversed and in which it is not made to appear that the same is of record in the trial court presents no question to this court for determination and the appeal will toe dismissed." Meadors v. Johnson, 27 Okla. 543 112 Pac. 1121; Courtney v. Moore, 51 Okla. 628 151 Pac. 1178: Shuck v. Moore. 48 Okla. 533, 150 Pac. 461; In re Garland, 52 Okla. 585, 153 Pac. 153; Negin v. Picher Lumber Co., 77 Okla. 285.
In this state of the record we think the appeal should toe dismissed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.