Case Name: Harrison et al. v. Murphey
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1909-07-13
Citations: 24 Okla. 424
Docket Number: No. 104
Parties: Harrison et al. v. Murphey.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 424–425

Head Matter:
Harrison et al. v. Murphey.
No. 104.
Opinion Filed July 13, 1909.
(103 Pac. 587.)
CAUSE OF ACTION STATED. The averments of the petition and the prayer in this cause considered, and held sufficient.to constitute a cause of action entitling plaintiff to the- relief prayed for.
('Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from District Court, Muskogee County; John H. King, Judge.
Bill by Mattie Harrison and others against George A. Mur-phey. Judgment for defendant, and.complainants bring error.
Be-versed and remanded.
N. E. Jacobs and Maxey & Runyan, for plaintiffs in error.
Hutchings, Murphey & German, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Dunn, J.
This suit was begun by filing a bill in equity in the United States Court for the Western District of Indian Territory at Muskogee on the 23d day of April, 1907, by plaintiffs in error against defendant in error. The issue on the pleading was heard after the admission of the state. To this bill the trial court sustained a demurrer and held that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a . cause of áction or entitle plaintiffs to the equitable relief asked, and dismissed the cause. Plaintiffs through their counsel took exception to this ruling, and the case was brought to this court by proceedings in error.
We agree with counsel for defendant that the character of the averments and allegations contained in the pleadings filed by the plaintiffs are such that, if not true, ought not to be spread at length permanently upon the records, and in the reports of this court. Defendant is a practicing attorney and a member in good standing in this court. We have examined with care the aver-ments contained in the bill, and find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the trial court. This will necessarily return the case for a trial. If a trial is not .had, or if it is had, and the charges are not sustained, and the matter is concluded thereby, possible wrong might be done defendant were the averments of the bill preserved as above indicated. In deference to this situation, we do not discuss the different propositions raised by counsel; but, after full and careful consideration by the court, we hold the averments of the bill, if supported by the evidence, sufficient to justify the relief asked for in the prayer.
The cause is accordingly reversed and remanded- to the district court of Muskogee county, with instructions to proceed in accordance herewith.
All the Justices concur.