Court Opinion

ID: 9817925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:01:55.297922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:08.762193
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
The defendant in error presents petition for rehearing on the ground: (1) That the petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court until more than six months after the rendition of the final judgment in said cause; (2) that this court had no jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of said cause, for the reason that the judge who tried ‘the cause did not settle and certify the case-made, and no reason is given why he did not do so.
The first ground set out in the petition has been adjudicated against the contention made in the petition,, by a long line of decisions of this court* commencing, with Doorley v. Buford & George Mfg. Co., 5 Okla, 594, 49 Pac. 936, and extending down to Garland v. Union Trust Co., 49 Okla. 654, 149 Pac. 893, holding that the. time for perfecting an appeal to the Supreme Court commences to run from the date of the order overruling the motion'for new trial, where a motion for a new trial is necessary, and such motion was necessary in the instant case. The motion for new trial, it appears, was overruled on the 18th day of November, 1912, and petition in error and case-made filed in this court on April 16, 1913, within the six months after the date of the overruling of the motion for new trial, and therefore in proper time.
The second ground of. the petition would be good, since section 5244, Rev. Laws 1910, makes it the duty of the trial judge, even though out of office, to “certify, sign or settle the case in all respects as if his term had not ex-*468piped” — and it; appears from the record that the trial judge's term had expired before the time for serving the case-made had run, and that it was settled and signed and certified by his successor in office — unless the defendant in error is estopped from raising this question at this time and in this manner. It appears from the record that the plaintiff in error briefed the case on the merits, and that the defendant in error filed a reply brief on the merits of the cause, without any suggestion or intimation that the court was without jurisdiction to pass upon the merits, and a decision was rendered on the merits reversing and remanding the cause for a new trial. The suggestion of want of jurisdiction in this court to pass upon the case is made for the first time in the petition for rehearing, after the court has passed upon the merits of the cause, and decided it against the contention of the defendant in error. We find in the case-made a stipulation signed by the attorneys, presenting the petition for rehearing, whereby it is stipulated and agreed that:
“The foregoing case-made contains a full, true, correct, and complete copy and transcript of all the proceedings in said cause, including all the pleadings filed and proceedings had, and all the evidence offered and introduced, all the orders and rulings made and exceptions allowed, all of the record upon which the judgment and journal entries in said cause were made, and the same is a full, true, correct, and complete case-made; and the said defendant waives the right to suggest amendments to said' case-made, and hereby consents that the same may be settled, without notice, and hereby joins in the request of the defendant that the judge of said court settle the same and order same certified to the clerk of said county court, and filed according to law.” .
The counsel for the defendant in .error, having stipulated that the caser-made is true and correct, and having *469joined in the request that the judge of the county court certify and settle the case-made, is now estopped by such stipulation from questioning the sufficiency of the certificate or the authority’ of the judge to make the’ same. Counsel ought not to be permitted, in a court of justice, to stultify himself, by attempting to repudiate his stipulation, and he will not be heard to do so here. We hold that ’ counsel is estopped from questioning the qualification of the judge to settle the case-made, or the sufficiency of the certificate thereto, by his stipulation.
The court held in Northcutt v. Bastable, 39 Okla. 124, 134 Pac. 423, that the stipulation of counsel worked an estoppel and prevented him from urging an objection that would have been good but for the stipulation. The same was held in Lewis v. Allen et al., 42 Okla. 584, 142 Pac. 384. Counsel ought to deal frankly with the court, as well as with the opposing counsel, and cannot be permitted to set traps and pitfalls for either. Counsel having joined in the request that the judge of the county court certify and settle the case-made, he cannot be heard to raise the question of the disqualification of the judge who performed this act, especially after having briefed the case on the merits and speculated on a decision in his favor. Such conduct cannot be justified either in law or morals, and will not be countenanced here.
We therefore recommend that the petition for rehearing be denied.
By the Court: It is so ordered.