# Jackson v. Haney

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · September 12, 1933 · 166 Okla. 13

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3802668

## Case

- **Full name:** JACKSON, Gdn., v. HANEY Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** September 12, 1933
- **Citations:** 166 Okla. 13; 25 P.2d 771; 1933 OK 459; 1933 Okla. LEXIS 325
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Busby
- **Judges:** Andrews, Bayless, Busby, Cullison, McNEILL, Osborn, Riley, Swin-Dall, Welch
- **Cited by:** 12 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/3802668

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3802668. Public record. Not legal advice.