Case Name: LAWMASTER v. DONER
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1933-01-31
Citations: 162 Okla. 35
Docket Number: No. 23309
Parties: LAWMASTER v. DONER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 162
Pages: 35–35

Head Matter:
LAWMASTER v. DONER.
No. 23309.
Opinion Filed Jan. 31, 1933.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1933.
John T. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.
Billingsley & Stanley, for defendant i-n error.

Opinion:
PER. CURIAM.
A motion to dismiss this action, was filed May 3, 1932, and to this a response was filed May 24, 1932.
It is admitted by all parties that prior to final judgment and after the ease on appeal from the justice court was filed in the superior court of Seminole county, Okla., Vii'gil D. Lawmiaslter attempted to appeal to this court by petition in error and case-made from an order sustaining the garnishment proceedings'.
In the case of Snyder v. Elliott, 26 Okla. 856, 110 P. 784, the court says:
"An order of the district court overruling a motion to discharge an attachment is not raviewable in the Supreme Court until a final judgment has been rendered in the case."
And in the case of Berry-Beall Dry Goods Co. v. Adams, 87 Okla. 291, 211 P. 79, the court says:
"A garnishment proceeding under the statutes of Oklahoma is so effectually an attachment that it is included within the term attachment."
The appeal herein having been taken prior toi a final hearing upon the merits of the' case, we must hold that the appeal is premature, and that the canse should be dismissed, and it is so ordered.