Court Opinion

ID: 9844533
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:04:19.507412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:37.009078
License: Public Domain

DAVISON, Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion. It is my firm belief that the opinion fails to give full effect to certain statutory provisions and fails to consider the force of prior decisions by this court.
Title 12 O.S.Supp.1963, § 972, requires that appeals by case made be filed in this court “within twenty (20) days from the date the case made is settled.” In the present case the appealing parties were proceeding under 12 O.S.1961, § 958, providing for settling and signing of the case made by the judge and attestation and attaching of the court seal by the clerk. The facts are that on March 30, 1967, the judge signed a certificate to settle the case made; on April 13, 1967, the clerk attested, attached the seal, and filed the case made in the case; and on April 28, 1967, the appeal was filed in this court. The appeal was filed more than 20 days after the judge signed the certificate to the case made, and less than 20 days after the clerk attested and attached the court seal. The question to be answered is, from which date shall the 20 day period be calculated?
*424The majority opinion recognizes it must show that the interpretation given 12 O.S. 1961, § 966, and the conclusion reached in Henry Building Company v. Cowman, Okl., 363 P.2d 208, cannot be used or applied to § 958.
Section 966 provides that where the parties incorporate a stipulation in the record of the case made that it is a full, true and correct record of the proceedings therein, and that settlement and signing by the judge is waived, such settling, certifying and signing by the Judge shall not be necessary, and further states:
“* * * and it shall then be sufficient for the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken to certify, under the seal of the court, and to incorporate such certificate in the record or case made, to the effect that the record or case made is a full, true and correct record of the proceedings therein, * * * according to the records and files in his office; and the record or case made shall thereupon be filed with the papers in the case, and all other and further proceedings had and done therewith as is now provided by the law for a record or case made settled; certified and signed by the court or Judge; and said zvritten stipulation and agreement shall have the same force and effect as the settlement, signing and certification by the Judge. * * * ” (emphasis supplied)
In the Cowman case we held that where the parties proceed pursuant to § 966, “the case made is ‘settled’ within the meaning of” §§ 966 and 972 when the court clerk certifies, under the seal of the court, that the case made contains a full, true and correct record of the proceeding therein. We stated that the settlement of the case made was “complete” when the court clerk signed his certificate. In other words, the 20 day period in which to file the appeal in this court was computed from the date the court clerk signed his certificate and thereby “completed” settlement of the case made, and not from the date the parties stipulated settlement and signing by the judge was waived, even though the statute, supra, stated that the written stipulation and agreement of the parties “shall have the same force and effect as the settlement, signing and certification by the Judge.” This can only mean that the certification by the clerk is an integral and essential part of the settling and signing when proceeding under § 966.
It is my opinion that the same reasoning and a similar conclusion may be validly used and reached in the present case.
Section 958 provides for settlement and signing of the case made by the Judge, and states in part as follows:
“* * * The case and amendments
shall, upon three days’ notice be submitted to the judge, who shall settle and sign the same, and cause it to be attested by the clerk, and the seal of the court to be thereto attached. It shall then be filed with the papers in the case. * * * ” (emphasis supplied)
It is my belief that this language makes the clerk’s attestation a part of the settling and signing of the case made. The statute states the court shall “cause” the case made to be attested by the clerk. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “cause,” in the sense it is here used, as “To effect a thing as an agent; to bring it about.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “cause,” as here used, to also mean “to effect by command, authority or force.” The official act of settling and signing is the combination of the judge signing the certificate to settle the case made and the attestation by the clerk. The official act is incomplete without the attestation.
There is no question concerning the importance of the clerk’s attestation. In Bland v. Morse, 141 Okl. 30, 283 P. 1002, this court stated:
“Where the signature of the trial judge to the certificate settling the case-made is not attested by the court clerk and the seal of the court affixed, such case-made is a nullity and brings nothing before this court for review.”
*425In Virginia Trust Co. v. Burnett, 147 Okl. 165, 296 P. 458, 459, it is stated as follows:
“The instrument is not a case-made, in that the signature and certificate of the trial judge thereto affixed was not and is not attested by the court clerk, as required by section 785, C.O.S.1921, as construed by this court in Hillery v. Cox, 125 Okl. 124, 256 P. 915, and an unbroken line of decisions. * * * ”
See also Hobby v. Poteet, 142 Okl. 250, 286 P. 782.
I believe that the statutory provisions and these authorities lead to only one conclusion, that the clerk’s attestation pursuant to the court’s direction is a part of the settling of the case made. The settling of the case made is not complete until the clerk attests the judge’s signature. I see no justifiable ground for not applying the legal reasoning employed in the Cowman case to the present situation.
For the reasons stated it is my opinion the 20 day period in which to file the appeal in this court should be computed from the date of the clerk’s attestation. The appeal should not be dismissed.
I am authorized to state that WILLIAMS and LAVENDER, JJ., concur in the dissenting views herein set forth.