Opinion

Hicks v. Gay

  • 31 Okla. 150
  • 120 P. 636
  • 1912 OK 41
  • 1912 Okla. LEXIS 16
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Jan 9, 1912
Status
Published
Author
Turner
On the bench
Turner, Hayes, Kane, Williams, Jj-, Dunn
Cited by
3 cases
Authority
More cited than 70.5%

The opinion

TURNER, C. J.

On May 27, 1911, Sanford Gay and eleven other defendants in error, alleging themselves to be resident landholders of Jackson county, and riparian owners of the surface and underflow waters of Turkey creek, sued H. L. Hicks and Ben Hennessey, secretary of the board of agriculture and

ex officio

state engineer, plaintiff’s in error, in the district court of that county. The petition further alleges in brief that said Hennessey, as secretary, was about to grant to the said Flicks certain rights, according to the prayer of his certain petition therein set forth, in and to the waters of said creek, and, among other things, prayed that he be, and he was, enjoined .from so doing. On June 14, 1911, came on to be heard at chambers the separate demurrer and motion to dissolve of each defendant, which were sustained by the judge, and, plaintiffs refusing to plead further, judgment was rendered and entered accordingly, and their petition dismissed. On July 10, 1911, plaintiffs com

*151

menced proceedings in error in this court by filing a petition in error and transcript of the record and suing out a •summons in error. On September 2, 1911, came on to be heard in the trial court a motion to reinstate the cause, and set the same for hearing, upon the ground that the order dismissing the petition was without authority of law,' which the court, being of opinion that the chambers order dismissing the petition was void, sustained. To reverse the action of the court, Hicks and Hen-nessey bring the case here.

On whether this is an appealable order it is unnecessary for us to pass. It is sufficient to say that the motion to reinstate the cause, not being preserved in the transcript by bill of exceptions, so as to make it a part of the record, cannot be considered here.

Davis v. Lammers et al.,

23 Okla. 338 , 100 Pac. 514 .

As no other 'error is assigned, this proceeding in error is dismissed.

HAYES, KANE, and WILLIAMS, JJ-, concur; DUNN, J., absent, and not participating.

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.