Opinion

Wood v. Speakman

  • 153 Okla. 180
  • 5 P.2d 121
  • 1931 OK 595
  • 1931 Okla. LEXIS 451
Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Filed
Oct 6, 1931
Status
Published
Author
Kilby
On the bench
Hefner, Andrews-, Kilby, Lester, Clark, Ctjllison, Swindall, Kornegay, Riley, McNeill, Andrews
Cited by
11 cases
Authority
More cited than 0.4%

The opinion

KILBY, J.,

(dissenting). The majority decision is in conflict with the rule of law established in Rice v. Bontjes, 121 Okla. 292 , 250 P. 89 , and Littlefield v. Brown. 68 Okla. 144 , 172 P. 643 , which is as in those cases stated:

“When the original summons is served, the defendants are in court for every purpose connected with the action, and the defendants served are bound to take notice of a filing of a cross-petition by a ccdefendant.”

Long ago we adopted the rule existing in the state of Kansas as disclosed by the Littlefield-Brown Case. It is more desirable that pleading and practice be settled for the benefit of all litigants than that departures be made from the general and established procedure in the fancied interest of some equity.

McNEILL, J., concurs 'in this dissent.

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.