The plaintiff, Lenora Young, never filed a motion for new trial as to the defendants who were dismissed from the action when the court sustained their respective demurrers to the evidence offered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, to sustain her motion to dismiss, cites: Scott v. Amis, 136 Okla. 72, 276 P. 215; Houghton v. Sealy, 129 Okla. 168, 264 P. 140, and cases therein cited. In Scott v. Amis, supra, the action was originally commenced by Mildred Amis against J.M.

Defendants first present a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds that the board of county commissioners of Creek county is not made a party to the appeal; that no notice of appeal was given as to it; no motion for new trial as to such defendant was filed, and no case-made was served upon it. In support of the motion to dismiss, defendants cite a number of cases from this court, including Komalty v. Cassidy-Southwest Commission Co., 62 Okla. 81, 161 P. 1061; Houghton et al. v. Sealy et al., 129 Okla. 168, 264 P. 140. These cases hold, in effect, that:

Therefore, the facts in this case bring it under the rule last above quoted. The proposition of the necessity of serving the case-made upon the defendant Devonian Oil Company is answered affirmatively in most of the cases above cited, to which may be added the case of Houghton v. Sealy, 129 Okla. 168, 264 P. 140, as well as many others, wherein the rule is announced as follows: "A failure to serve case-made upon an adverse party whose rights might be prejudicially affected by a modification or reversal of the order or judgment appealed from defeats the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain such appeal, and said appeal will be dismissed on motion."

It has been repeatedly held by this court that where a reversal or modification of a judgment of the trial court is sought upon a case-made, such case-made or a copy thereof must be served upon each adverse party or his attorney of record. Failure to serve such case-made upon one of such parties who might be prejudicially affected by the modification or reversal of the judgment renders such case-made a nullity, and it presents nothing to this court for review. Houghton v. Sealy, 129 Okla. 168, 264 P. 140; Best Producing Co. v. Fagan, 90 Okla. 270, 217 P. 368; Grounds v. Dingman, 60 Okla. 247, 160 P. 883; Coss v. Sterrett, 49 Okla. 446, 161 P. 187. Case-made, not having been served upon the defendants in error Phil Watson, administrator of the estate of E. C. Robinson, deceased, Edmon C. Robinson, or his guardian ad litem, W. F. Durham, or upon J. H. Adams or Ed Adams is a nullity, and brings nothing before this court for review, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.

Where a reversal is sought upon case-made, such case-made, or a copy thereof, must be served upon each adverse party or his attorney. Failure to serve case-made upon one of such parties who might be prejudicially affected by a modification or reversal of the judgment renders such case-made a nullity, and nothing is presented thereby to this court for review. Grounds v. Dingman, 60 Okla. 247, 160 P. 883; Best Producing Co. v. Fagan et al., 90 Okla. 270, 217 P. 368; Cooper et al. v. Shidler, 98 Okla. 89, 224 P. 183; Houghton v. Sealey, 129 Okla. 168, 264 P. 140. The case-made filed in this cause not having been served upon the defendants in error M. A. Treadway and Ollie Treadway or their attorneys of record, the same is a nullity and brings nothing before this court for review, and upon motion of the defendants in error this appeal is dismissed.

It would thus appear that, in order to perfect an appeal by petition in error and case-made, under the rules announced, it is necessary to give the notice of intention to appeal, as required by section 782, C. O. S. 1921, and also to serve a copy of the case-made upon all necessary adverse parties as provided by section 785, C. O. S. 1921. See, also, Houghton v. Sealy, 129 Okla. 168, 264 P. 140. We do not think it was necessary under section 785, supra, to serve a copy of the case-made upon Kate C. Stebbins, administratrix.