Stites v. DUIT Const. Co., Inc. , 1995 OK 69, n. 10, 903 P.2d 293, 297 ("It is this court's duty to inquire sua sponte not only into its own jurisdiction but also into the cognizance of the court whence the case came by appeal or on certiorari.") (collecting cases).Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corporation , 1924 OK 903, 103 Okla. 241, 229 P. 1048, 1050 (when discussing a claim defendant used the incorrect procedure to challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court, the Supreme Court explained "the question can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, either by motion, or the court may, of its own motion, or whenever its attention is called to the fact, refuse to proceed further and dismiss the case"), citing Model Clothing Co. v. First National Bank of Cushing , 1916 OK 852, 61 Okla. 88, 160 P. 450. Cf . Dutton v. City of Midwest City , 2015 OK 51, ¶ 15, 353 P.3d 532, 538 ("A court has a duty to inquire into whether it possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action that has been brought before the court."); Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc. , 2013 OK 77, 315 P.3d 359 (District Court's sua sponte dismissal of action against Peoria Tribe for lack of jurisdiction affirmed on appeal by Court).

If the court finds at any stage of the proceedings that it is without jurisdiction, it is its duty to take proper notice of the defect by staying the proceedings, dismissing the cause, or by other appropriate action. East Side Baptist Church v. Morgan, 204 Okla. 685, 233 P.2d 957, 958; Alexander Drug Co. v. Holbert, 156 Okla. 198, 10 P.2d 412; Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corporation, 103 Okla. 241, 229 P. 1048, 1050, 21 C.J.S. Courts § 114, pp. 175, 176. When constitutionally protected rights are at stake, the court's determination of the validity of its process must be made, at the latest, when the judgment is rendered and before it is sought to be enforced or vacated.

The order restrained the defendant "from in any way removing the minor children of the parties hereto from the jurisdiction of this court, pending further order of the court." Defendant's contention would limit jurisdiction to a matter of territorial area. Jurisdiction is the power of courts and judicial officers to take cognizance of, and hear and determine, the subject matter in controversy between the parties to a proceeding pending, and to adjust or exercise judicial power over them. Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corporation, 103 Okla. 241, 229 P. 1048. See also 21 C.J.S. Courts § 15 a, p. 29.

The question of the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of an action is properly raised by motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction; even in the absence of such a motion, it is the bounden duty of the court to inquire into its own jurisdiction. Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corp., 103 Okla. 241, 229 P. 1048, and many cases therein cited; Hamilton v. Browder, 176 Okla. 229, 54 P.2d 1025. Jurisdiction of the subject matter is the power of the courts to take cognizance of and hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between the parties.

Such an exception is self-executing "when there is a manifest intention that they should go into immediate effect, and no ancillary legislation is necessary to the enjoyment of a right given." Atchison, T. S. F. R. Co. v. Excise Board, 168 Okla. 619, 35 P.2d 274; Zachary v. City of Wagoner, 146 Okla. 268, 292 P. 345; Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corp., 103 Okla. 241, 229 P. 1048. That a right granted by a constitutional provision may be better or further protected by supplementary legislation does not, of itself, prevent the provision from being self-executing, nor does the self-executing character of a constitutional provision preclude legislation for the better protection of the right secured.

Whitla Knudson, of Coeur d'Alene, for appellant. The courts will not take jurisdiction of a case where only internal affairs of a corporation of a foreign state are involved. Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, Pars. 5786-8425; Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corporation, 103 Okl. 241, 229 P. 1048; State v. Denton, 229 Mo. 187, 129 S.W. 709, 138 Am.St.Rep. 417; Eberhard v. Northwestern M. Life Ins. Co., D.C., 210 F. 520; Sidway v. Missouri Land Livestock Co., C.C., 101 F. 481. Courts will not entertain jurisdiction to determine elections of directors of foreign corporations.

s that the respondent as plaintiff in the divorce action was not a resident of Pottawatomie county at the time the action was commenced and had never been a resident of Pottawatomie county, but had always been a resident of Tulsa county; that the petitioner as defendant in that action signed a waiver of the issuance of summons; and although it is stated therein that he received a copy of the petition, he never in fact received one; that the respondent perpetrated a fraud on the petitioner in that it was orally agreed between them that the petitioner should have the house in Tulsa, but that in the decree respondent received the house by alleging and offering evidence to sustain the proof that she owned the house as property acquired by her own efforts. The petitioner argues that the decree is void or at least should be set aside, for fraud, for the reason that the respondent was a resident of Tulsa county and was never a resident of Pottawatomie county. Defendant cites and relies upon Fehr v. Black Petroleum Corporation, 103 Okla. 241, 229 P. 1048; Board of Trustees of Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund v. Brooks, 179 Okla. 600, 67 P.2d 4; Beach v. Beach, 4 Okla. 359, 46 P. 514; Pope v. Pope, 116 Okla. 188, 243 P. 962; Anderson v. Anderson, 140 Okla. 168, 282 P. 335; and Burton v. Burton, 176 Okla. 494, 56 P.2d 385. The first two cases can be eliminated because they bear no relation to the question involved. Beach v. Beach, Pope v. Pope, and Anderson v. Anderson, supra, involve appeals in divorce actions or proceedings where the question of fact was reviewed by the Supreme Court.

As to the jurisdiction and subject matter, the following authorities are cited. Art. V, Sec. 3, Const. of Wyoming; Sec. 9-116 Wyoming Statutes; Higgins v. Burton, (Utah) 232 P. 914; In re Robinson, (Wash.) 92 P. 929; The Fair v. Specialty Co., 228 U.S. 22; Fehr v. Petroleum Corporation, (Okla.) 229 P. 1048. The motion for judgment on pleadings admits the allegations of paragraphs 1-4-6 to 28 inclusive.

"Jurisdiction is the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases. * * * If a court has jurisdiction of the persons to the action, and the cause is the kind of a cause triable in such court, it has jurisdiction of the subject of the action and has the power to render any rightful judgment therein." Parker v. Lynch, 7 Okla. 631, 56 P. 1082; Bockfinger v. Foster, 10 Okla. 488, 62 P. 799; Fehr v. Black Pet. Corp., 103 Okla. 241, 229 P. 1049. The defendant board was properly before the court, both by service of summons and by general appearance.

Blake, County Treasurer, et al. v. Metz, 136 Okla. 146, 276 P. 762: "In the latter case (referring to Fehr v. Black Pet. Co., 103 Okla. 241, 229 P. 1048), in the body of the opinion it is said: 'The fundamental question of jurisdiction, first the appellate court, and then the court from which the record comes, presents itself on every writ of error, or appeal, and must be answered by the court, whether propounded by counsel or not.' In support of this statement, many authorities are cited, including Myers v. Berry, supra.