# Board of Commissioners of Caddo County v. Dietrich

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · October 12, 1915 · 49 Okla. 267

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3797625

## Case

- **Full name:** BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF CADDO COUNTY v. DIETRICH Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 12, 1915
- **Citations:** 49 Okla. 267; 152 P. 341; 1915 OK 789; 1915 Okla. LEXIS 41
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Kane
- **Judges:** Kane
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3797625

## Opinion text

KANE, C. J.
This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the proceeding in error, filed by the defendants in error for the reason, among other things, that:
“The judgment from which the appeal herein is prosecuted is a joint -judgment, and O. M. Hite, J. A. Dinkier, Louis E. McKnight, W. E. Turner, A. Youngheim, Frank Carpenter, J. A. Menefee, and A. N. Benedict”
*268
—who are parties thereto, have not been served with the case-made herein and are not parties to the proceeding, and this court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to ro^ view said judgment. This contention seems to be well supported by the authorities.
Weisbender v. School District,
24 Okla. 173 , 103 Pac. 639 , and
Southwestern Surety Ins. Co. v. Hall,
40 Okla. 447 , 139 Pac. 305 , cited by counsel for defendants in error in support of their motion, seem to be entirely in point. The motion to dismiss is not resisted by the plaintiff in error.
For the reason stated the motion to dismiss is sustained.
All the Justices concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3797625. Public record. Not legal advice.