Opinion

Jackson v. Haney

  • 166 Okla. 13
  • 25 P.2d 771
  • 1933 OK 459
  • 1933 Okla. LEXIS 325
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Sep 12, 1933
Status
Published
Author
Busby
On the bench
Andrews, Bayless, Busby, Cullison, McNEILL, Osborn, Riley, Swin-Dall, Welch
Cited by
12 cases

The opinion

BUSBY, J.

(specially concurring). I concur in the conclusion reached herein, to wit: That the guardianship appointment by the Muskogee county court is the valid one. But this, for the reason that the petition for probate of will designating the appointment of guardian filed in the Muskogee county court vested that court with jurisdiction of the subject-matter under consideration. When the jurisdiction of that court was invoked first, and its machinery placed in motion, it retained its control to the end of the controversy to the exclusion of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. To hold that the time of appointment determines jurisdiction would, in my opinion, promote mad races between courts of coordinate jurisdiction to see which could enter a final order first. This would tend to discourage that deliberation so essential to a determination of the rights of parties in judicial tribunals.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.