From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Phelps, Judge

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Mar 21, 1911
114 P. 695 (Okla. 1911)

Opinion

No. 153

Opinion Filed March 21, 1911.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE — Right of Appeal. Syllabus same as St. L. S. F. R. R. Co. v. Couch, Justice of the Peace (handed down this term) ante, 114 P. 694.

Turner; C. J., and Williams J., dissenting.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from District Court, Caddo County; C. F. Irwin, Judge.

Action between the Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company and G. B. Phelps, Judge. From the judgment, the railway company, brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

C. O. Blake, H. B. Low, A. T. Boys, and Dale Bierer, for plaintiff in error.


Upon the question of the right of appeal, this case is identical with St. L. S. F. R. R. Co. v. A. H. Couch, Justice of the Peace of Dicks Township, Woods County, Okla. T. (handed down this term), ante, 114 P. 694. On the authority of that case, this must be reversed and remanded with directions to proceed in accordance with the opinion in that case. It appears from the record, however, that an attorney's fee was taxed as part of the costs in this case. If under the authority of C., R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Mashore, 21 Okla. 275, 96 P. 630, the same was improperly taxed, that question may be properly raised by a motion to retax the costs.

DUNN and HAYES, JJ., concur; TURNER. C J., and WILLIAMS, J., dissent.


Summaries of

Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Phelps, Judge

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Mar 21, 1911
114 P. 695 (Okla. 1911)
Case details for

Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Phelps, Judge

Case Details

Full title:CHICAGO, R.I. P. RY. CO. v. PHELPS, Judge

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Mar 21, 1911

Citations

114 P. 695 (Okla. 1911)
114 P. 695

Citing Cases

Dannenburg v. Powers

The justice of the peace courts are provided for by our Constitution, but their jurisdiction has been left to…

Ardmore Hotel Co. v. J. B. Klein Iron Foundry Co.

It is contended that the above section is void because it violates article 5, section 59, Constitution of…