Sharum v. Sharum

5 Citing cases

  1. Fishencord v. Peterson

    173 Okla. 382 (Okla. 1935)   Cited 3 times

    Without doubt the petition in this case joins several distinct causes of action, neither of which falls within the permissible clauses of section 266, C. O. S. 1921 (sec. 199, Okla. Stats. 1931.), but if said causes of action did fall within one of the saving clauses of such section, they would fail to meet the test provided of each of the causes of action affecting all of the parties to the action. Sharum v. Sharum, 101, Okla. 273, 225 P. 682; Stone v. Case, 34 Okla. 5, 124 P. 960; Thompson v. Gatlin et al., 58 F. 534; Southern Surety Co. v. Patterson Steel Co., 111 Okla. 39, 237 P. 588; Haskell County Bank et al. v. Bank of Santa Fe, 51 Kan. 39, 32 P. 624; Gardner v. Ogden et al., 22 N.Y. 327; Bryan et al. v. Sullivan, 55 Okla. 109, 154 P. 1167. While the ruling of the trial court sustaining the demurrers does not distinctly state the demurrers are sustained on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action, we think that the requirement that the first and second causes of action be separately filed indicates beyond question that the demurrers were sustained on account of misjoinder of causes of action; but, however this may be, the rule of law is that where several grounds of demurrer are set out, some of which go to the merits and some only to the form of the action, the assumption is that the demurrers were sustained on defects that do not go to the merits.

  2. Sharum v. Sharum

    247 P. 97 (Okla. 1926)   Cited 8 times

    Also, this is the second time this cause has been before this court. When the original petition was filed in the district court, a demurrer was sustained to the second cause of action; plaintiff elected to stand upon the demurrer and appealed to this court, and in the opinion, 101 Okla. 273, 225 P. 682, this court said: "We are of the opinion that the petition stated a cause of action for the malicious interference on the part of the defendant with the right of the plaintiff to obtain support by reason of the order of the district court of Muskogee county."

  3. Cooper v. Stock Yards Bank of Ok. City

    644 P.2d 123 (Okla. Civ. App. 1982)   Cited 5 times
    In Cooper v. Stock Yards Bank of Oklahoma City, 644 P.2d 123 (Okla.App. 1981), a bookkeeper, without proper authorization, signed checks on the company account to pay company creditors.

    Under these circumstances, when Customer sought to introduce the extraneous checks, he was actually attempting to add causes of action after the statute of limitations had expired. Holland v. Perrault, Okla., 312 P.2d 976 (1957); Sharum v. Sharum, 101 Okla. 273, 225 P. 682 (1924). Amendment may not be made to petition at trial to state a new or separate cause of action.

  4. DeSantis v. Yaw

    290 Pa. Super. 535 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)   Cited 14 times
    Finding statute of limitations constitutional even though barring a minor's claim

    By 1924 the Oklahoma court in dictum recognized a tort of malicious interference with a child's right to parental support. Sharum v. Sharum, 101 Okl. 273, 225 P. 682, and in the 1940's three jurisdictions recognized a right of action in children for enticement away of a parent. See 12 A.L.R.2d 1178. The very recent Massachusetts case of Ferriter v. DanielO'Connell's Sons, see infra, has extended the right to recovery for loss of parental companionship and society to actions based on negligent tort injury of the parent.

  5. Nash v. Baker

    522 P.2d 1335 (Okla. Civ. App. 1974)   Cited 8 times
    In Nash v. Baker, 522 P.2d 1335, 1338 (OK APP CIV 1974), the Oklahoma court held that the "personal relations" which are protected under 76 O.S. § 6[ 76-6], are those contained in 76 O.S. § 8[ 76-8], that is, the abduction of a husband from his wife or a parent from his child, the abduction or enticement of a wife from her husband, of a child from a parent, or from a guardian entitled to its custody, or of a servant from his master.

    As the father would himself be liable for the support of his children, even after he left the family home, and the petition had alleged that when he left the father was on the brink of increased prosperity, the allegations on appeal regarding "support and maintenance" will be held to mean no more than "loss of society, affection, assistance, moral support and [paternal] guidance". Thus, the present action does not come within the doctrine or holding of Sharum v. Sharum, 101 Okla. 273, 225 P. 682 (1924). Also, each child seeks punitive damages.