Therefore it follows that if they were necessary parties to this proceeding this case must dismissed. Said defendants in error may have been satisfied with the judgment in favor of their codefendant Margaret F. Winston, but should the judgment in her favor be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial, they might not be satisfied with a judgment in favor of plaintiffs in error, and in fact the evidence might disclose that they possessed rights superior to plaintiffs in error, and hence a reversal of the judgment in favor of defendant Margaret F. Winston would affect their rights, and might affect them adversely, and this being true, they were necessary parties, and because they are not made parties in the proceeding in this court, same must be dismissed. Hawkins et al. v. Hawkins et al., 35 Okla. 641, 130 P. 926; White Lumber Co. v. Beasley et al., 45 Okla. 771, 146 P. 1082; Bledsoe v. Means, 49 Okla. 268, 152 P. 394; Malone et al. v. Scott, 73 Oklahoma, 158 P. 606; Wade v. Hope Killingsworth et al., 65 Okla. 69, 162 P. 742. Chapter 219, Laws 1917, has no application here, because under an unbroken line of decisions in this state, where petition in error is not filed in this court for more than six months after the date of the final order sought to be reviewed, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The authorities announcing this rule are so numerous that citation thereof is unnecessary.
The appeal will be dismissed. In White Lumber Co. v. Beasley et al., 45 Okla. 771, 146 P. 1082, it was said: "On appeal all parties to a judgment which is sought to be reversed whose interests will be affected by a reversal of the judgment must either join in the proceedings in error or be made parties defendant, and be brought into this court by service of summons within the statutory time, and where they do not voluntarily appear, or on motion, the appeal will be dismissed. Durant et al. v. Munford, 38 Okla. 552, 134 P. 50; School Dist. 39 v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9, 99 P. 646."