McMaster v. Peoples Bank of Edmond

8 Citing cases

  1. Daniels v. Scott

    1959 OK 57 (Okla. 1959)   Cited 5 times
    In Daniels v. Scott, 340 P.2d 223 (Okla. 1959), the issue was whether the insurer who had issued an insurance policy to an LP gas permittee could be joined as a defendant in an action against the permittee for injuries resulting from the permittee's alleged negligence.

    All the rulings complained of in this matter could have been excepted to, and, when a final disposition was made of said cause, and a final order, judgment, and decree entered therein, determining the respective rights of the parties to this controversy, have been reviewed by incorporating the same in an appeal by petition in error to this court. McMaster v. [People's] Bank, 13 Okla. 326, 73 P. 946; McCulloch v. Dodge, 8 Kan. 476; Flint v. Noyes, 27 Kan. 351; Short v. Nooner, 16 Kan. 220."

  2. Warren v. Howell

    232 P.2d 934 (Okla. 1951)   Cited 2 times
    In Warren v. Howell, 204 Okla. 674, 232 P.2d 934, plaintiff alleged a partnership with defendants and sought an accounting.

    All the rulings complained of in this matter could have been excepted to, and, when a final disposition was made of said cause, and a final order, judgment, and decree entered therein, determining the respective rights of the parties to this controversy, have been reviewed by incorporating the same in an appeal by petition in error to this court. McMaster v. Bank et al., 13 Okla. 326, 73 P. 946; McCulloch v. Dodge, 8 Kan. 476; Flint v. Noyes, 27 Kan. 351; Short v. Nooner, 16 Kan. 220.'"

  3. In re Hunter's Estate

    158 P.2d 345 (Okla. 1945)   Cited 3 times

    In the case at bar we may assume without deciding that the orders of the county court of Osage county affected a substantial right of the plaintiff in error, but that assumption is insufficient to dispose of this appeal unless we also determine that such orders were final in character, since final orders are the only type from which an appeal may be taken under 84 O.S. 1941 § 255[ 84-255] (sec. 1395, O.S. 1931, S.L. 1919, sec. 5, pg. 42). In McMaster v. Peoples Bank of Edmond, 13 Okla. 326, 73 P. 946, we held that an order is not final if it leaves the parties in court to have the issues tried on the merits. The meaning of the term "final order" is defined by statute in this state.

  4. Attaway v. Watkins

    41 P.2d 914 (Okla. 1935)   Cited 21 times
    In Attaway v. Watkins, 171 Okla. 102, 41 P.2d 914, in discussing a final order under 12 O.S. 1951 § 953[ 12-953], in holding that the order involved was not final we cited Oklahoma City Land Development Co. v. Patterson, 73 Okla. 234, 175 P. 934.

    All the rulings complained of in this matter could have been excepted to, and when a final disposition was made of said cause, and a final order, judgment, and decree entered therein, determining the respective rights of the parties to this controversy, have been reviewed by incorporating the same in an appeal by petition in error to this court. McMaster v. Bank et al., 13 Okla. 326, 73 P. 946; McCulloch v. Dodge. 8 Kan. 476; Flint v. Noyes, 27 Kan. 351; Short v. Nooner, 16 Kan. 220. "We are therefore of the opinion that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed, and therefore recommend that the same be done."

  5. Haygood v. Pinkey

    239 P. 456 (Okla. 1925)   Cited 5 times
    In Haywood v. Pinkey, 112 Okla. 30, 239 P. 456, we stated that an order sustaining a motion to set aside a dismissal of a cause of action and reinstating the same is not a final order and that no appeal can be taken therefrom prior to a final determination of the case.

    "A final order is one ending the particular action in which it is entered, leaving nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to determine the rights of the parties." Counsel for defendant in error call our attention to the following cases in support of her contention: First State Bank of Blanchard v. Harmon, 80 Okla. 80, 196 P. 125; Brooks v. J. R. Watkins Medical Co., 81 Okla. 82, 196 P. 956; Okla. City Land Development Co. v. Patterson, 73 Okla. 234, 175 P. 934; Tobley v. DeKinder, 85 Okla. 288, 206 P. 201; McMaster v. Peoples Bank, 13 Okla. 326, 73 P. 946. We do not think the order appealed from by plaintiff in error is one defined by any provision of the statutes and authorities above cited as an appealable order, and we are, therefore, of the opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff in error should be sustained, and the appeal of both parties should be dismissed.

  6. Wells v. Shriver

    81 Okla. 108 (Okla. 1921)   Cited 78 times

    All the rulings complained of in this matter could have been excepted to, and, when a final disposition was made of said cause, and a final order, judgment, and decree entered therein, determining the respective rights of the parties to this controversy have been reviewed by incorporating the same in an appeal by petition in error to this court. McMaster v. Bank et al., 13 Okla. 326, 73 P. 946; McCulloch v. Dodge, 8 Kan. 476; Flint v. Noyes, 27 Kan. 351; Short v. Nooner, 16 Kan. 220. We are therefore of the opinion that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed, and therefore recommend that the same be done.

  7. Oklahoma City Land Development Co. v. Patterson

    175 P. 934 (Okla. 1918)   Cited 39 times
    In Oklahoma City Land Development Co. v. Patterson, 73 Okla. 234, 175 P. 934, we held that an appeal does not lie to this court from an intermediate or interlocutory order made during the pendency of an action, which intermediate or interlocutory order leaves the parties in court to have the issues tried on the merits, unless the appeal sought to be taken comes within some one of the special orders from which an appeal is authorized by statute prior to final judgment in the main action.

    All the rulings complained of in this matter could have been excepted to, and, when a final disposition was made of said cause, and a final order, judgment, and decree entered therein, determining the respective rights of the parties to this controversy, have been reviewed by incorporating the same in an appeal by petition in error to this court. McMaster v. Bank et al., 13 Okla. 326, 73 P. 946; McCulloch v. Dodge, 8 Kan. 476; Flint v. Noyes, 27 Kan. 351; Short v. Nooner, 16 Kan. 220. We are therefore of the opinion that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed, and therefore recommend that the same be done.

  8. Grunawalt v. Grunawalt

    104 P. 905 (Okla. 1909)   Cited 9 times

    "Unless there has been a final termination of the case in the court below, a writ of error will not lie to an order striking a plea, even though the effect of such order may be to entitle the plaintiff to a judgment or verdict as matter of course." For a further discussion of this section of the statute, see, also, McMaster v. Peoples' Bank, 13 Okla. 326, 73 P. 946. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.