Case Name: COSS et al. v. STERRITT
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1915-06-29
Citations: 49 Okla. 446
Docket Number: No. 5707
Parties: COSS et al. v. STERRITT.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 446–456

Head Matter:
COSS et al. v. STERRITT.
No. 5707.
Opinion Filed June 29, 1915.
Opinion on Rehearing, November 9, 1915.
Second Petition for Rehearing Denied December 5, 1915.
(161 Pac. 187.)
1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Parties—Necessary Parties — Defendants in Error. Where a judgment is joint, all persons against whom it is rendered and who would necessarily be affected by a reversal must be served' with the- case-made, unless the same be waived, and must be given notice of the time and place of settling and signing the case-made, unless the same be waived, or they appear, and must be made parties to the appeal; and when such presentation is not made and such notice is not given, nor the same waived, nor an appearance, made, and such parties" are' not made parties to the appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to hear such attempted appeal. •
2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Record—Objections—Waiver. After a case-made has been settled and signed,, and the time in which an appeal to this court may be taken has expired, a necessary party to the appeal, who was not presented with the case-made within the time fixed-by the trial court, and wás -not-given-notice bf the time and place for settling and signing such case-made, cannot waive such failure to .serve- case-made- and notice .of-settling and signing same, so as .to giye ..this court jurisdiction of such attempted appeal.
(Syllabus by Collier, C.)
Error from District Court, Murray County; R. McMillan, Judge. -
Action by T. A. Sterritt against Virgil R. Coss and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants, except defendant Zora Daniel, bring error. .
Dismissed.
This is an appeal attempted to be prosecuted by plaintiffs in error from a . joint judgment rendered against Zora Daniel and others, to recover certain lands described in the petition, and to remove cloud from title thereto.
On the 29th day of August, 1913, said joint judgment was rendered, and some of the parties plaintiff in error given 60 days in which to prepare and serve case-made in this case. The case-made was settled and signed. by the trial judge on the 14th day of October, 1913;.but said case-made was not presented to said Zora Daniel; nor was the notice of the place and time in which said case-made would be settled and signed by the trial judge served upon said Daniel, nor did- she appear or waive such notice. The record also fails to show that summons in error ever issued to or was served upon said Daniel or that she ever waived the same; nor is said Daniel made a party to this appeal.
On the 15th day of March, 1915, defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss this appeal—
“upon the ground that said Zora Daniel was a party defendant in the trial court, duly served with summons, and was a party to said joint judgment, and is a necessary party to this appeal, and without joining herein the said Zora Daniel, who is a necessary party to this appeal, and she not having been served with the case-made filed herein, and not having waived such service, nor appeared at the signing and settling thereof, and not having been served with summons hereto, and the time within which said things must be done having expired, therefore this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this cause.”
On the ' 23rd day of April, 1915, more than 18 months after said case-made was settled and signed, there was filed in this court a paper, signed by Zora Daniel, reciting that:
“She hereby enters her general appearance in the above-entitled case and waives the failure to serve upon her the case-made and summons in error, and failure to notify her of the time and place of signing and settling said case-made, and hereby waives any and all informalities and irregularities, if any, in the service, signing, and settling of said case-made and the filing of same, together with the petition in error wiith the Supreme Court of-the state.”
Burwell, Crockett & Johnson, for plaintiffs in error.
George M. Nicholson and Gray & McVay, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
COLLIER, C.
(after stating facts as above). The only question here under review is upon the motion to dismiss this appeal. It is positively shown that .this is an appeal from a joint judgment rendered against said Zora Daniel and others, that she was not presented with the case-made, and no notice was given her of the time and place said case-made would be settled and signed, and that she never appeared or waived such notice, nor was she made a party to this appeal, nor was summons in error issued to or served upon her, nor did she waive any of said requirements; her attempt to waive same 18 months after the case-made was settled and signed being abortive.
In Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Litty Going et al., 48 Okla. 460, 150 Pac. 488, it is held:
"A case-made, settled and signed without service of notice, stating the time and place in which the presiding judge will be asked to settle and sign the same, upon all of the opposite parties, and without their appearance, either in person or by attorney, and without their waiver of such notice, is a nullity, and confers no jurisdiction on this court to decide any question thereunder."
See, also, Moore v. Howard Mer. Co., 40 Okla. 491, 139 Pac. 524.
The attempted correction of the failure to present the said Zora Daniel with said case-made, to give her notice of the time and place at which the case-made herein would be signed and settled, she not having waived the same or made an appearance at the signing and settling of said case-made, and of the failure to make her a party 'to this appeal, by the said instrument signed by her and filed in this court, cannot avail to overcome said laches of attorneys for plaintiffs in error and give this court jurisdiction to decide any question involved in this attempted appeal.
In American Nat. Bank of McAlester et al. v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 31 Okla. 633, 122 Pac. 507, Chief Justice Turner, speaking for the court said:
"The judgment being joint, all persons against whom it was rendered and who would necessarily be affected by a reversal must be made parties to this proceeding. Wedd v. Gates et al., 15 Okla. 602, 82 Pac. 808; Strange et al. v. Crismon, 22 Okla. 841, 98 Pac. 937; Weisbender et al. v. School District, 24 Okla. 173, 103 Pac. 639; James S. Hughes, Special Adm'r, v. A. L. Rhodes, 25 Okla. 172, 105 Pac. 650. Being a necessary party to the appeal, he or his attorney should have been served with the case-made or a copy thereof, and, not being so served, we are without jurisdiction to review the judgment complained of. Humphrey v. Hunt, 9 Okla. 196, 59 Pac. 971; Spaulding Manufacturing Co. v. W. H. Dill et al., 25 Okla. 395, 106 Pac. 817. Being jurisdictional, it cannot be waived. Atkins v. Nordyke, 60 Kan. 354, 56 Pac. 533. For this reason the subsequent amendment by leave of the petition in error so as to make Hinds a party, upon which a summons issued for him which was returned indorsed: T, W. G. D. Hinds, the within-named defendant in error, hereby accept service of the within summons in error and do hereby waive formal service of said summons in error upon me by the sheriff, and I do hereby waive all formalities of making and serving case-made upon me, and do hereby consent that the cause may be submitted for trial in the Supreme Court upon petition in error filed by plaintiffs in error and upon original pleadings and other records of the lower court and the evidence taken in the lower court in said cause, all of which are contained in the case-made, and agree that the case may be submitted upon said case-made now filed. W. G. D. Hinds, Defendant in Error. At Muskogee, November 5th, 1909' — availeth nothing."
In Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 33 Okla. 202, 124 Pac. 63, the same doctrine is announced as in the American National Bank of McAlester et al. v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., supra, wherein it is said:
"And this too, although, as here, after the time for the service of the case-made on McGee, plaintiffs in error have amended their petition in error by making McGee a party defendant in error in this court, and he has entered his appearance and waived service of the case-made, for the reason that a failure to serve the case-made upon McGee within the time allowed defeats the jurisdiction of this court and prevents a review of the judgment, although he subsequently appeared in this court and waived .service of the case-made."
It follows that this appeal should be dismissed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.