Title: SNYDER v. ELLIOTT
Citation: 110 P. 78 4, 1910 OK 250, 26 Okla. 856
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: July 12, 1910

SNYDER v. ELLIOTT Annotate this Case SNYDER v. ELLIOTT 1910 OK 250 110 P. 784 26 Okla. 856 Case Number: 1640 Decided: 07/12/1910 Supreme Court of Oklahoma SNYDER v. ELLIOTT. Syllabus ¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Orders Appealable-- Refusal to Dissolve Attachment. An order of the district court overruling a motion to discharge an attachment is not reviewable in the Supreme Court until a final judgment has been rendered in the case. Error from District Court, Tulsa County; L. M. Poe, Judge. Action by R. P. Elliott, as executor of the estate of Cornelius B. Perryman, deceased, against Peter Snyder. From an order denying defendant's motion to dissolve an attachment, he brings error. On motion to dismiss. Granted. Tibbetts & Green, for plaintiff in error. Biddison & Campbell and R. P. Elliott, for defendant in error. DUNN, C. J. ¶1 This case presents error from the district court of Tulsa county, Okla., and is an appeal from an order of the district court refusing to dissolve an attachment. Counsel for defendant in error have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that no appeal or proceeding in error will lie from such an order. The motion must be sustained. See Snavely v. Abbott Buggy Co., 36 Kan. 106, 12 P. 522, wherein will be found a full discussion of this question; the court in the syllabus saying: "An order of the district court overruling a motion to discharge an attachment is not reviewable in the Supreme Court until a final judgment has been rendered in the case. Brown v. Kimble, 5 Kan. 80; Edenfield v. Barnhart, 5 Kan. 225; Hottenstein v. Conrad, 5 Kan. 249; Burton v. Boyd, 7 Kan. 17; Dolbee v. Hoover, 8 Kan. 124; R. R. v. Brown, 26 Kan. 443; Anderson v Bank, 27 Kan. 162; Brown v. R. R., 29 Kan. 186; Potter v. Payne, 31 Kan. 218 [1 P. 617]; K. R. M. Co. v. R. R., 31 Kan. 90 [1 P. 274; Miller v. Noyes, 34 Kan. 13 [7 P. 692]; Anderson v. Higgins, 35 Kan. 201 [10 P. 570]; Burch v. Adams, 40 Kan. 639 [20 P. 476]; Boyd v. Cook, 40 Kan. 676 [20 P. 477]." ¶2 The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ¶3 All the Justices concur.