HAWKINS v. TEURMAN

HAWKINS v. TEURMAN
1945 OK 307
163 P.2d 551
196 Okla. 153
Case Number: 31693
Decided: 11/20/1945
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

HAWKINS
v.
TEURMAN

Syllabus

¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR-Duty of Supreme Court on its own motion to inquire into its jurisdiction.
It is the duty of this court on its own motion to inquire into its jurisdiction.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR-Motion to discharge attachment not brought up by transcript.
A motion to discharge property from an attachment is not part of the record unless made so by bill of exceptions or case-made and cannot be brought to this court by transcript.

Appeal from District Court, Pittsburg County; R. W. Higgins, Judge.

Action by Claud Hawkins against Claud Teurman. Proceeding on appeal from an order discharging an attachment. Dismissed.

Hulsey & Hulsey, of McAlester, for plaintiff in error.
Counts & Jones, of McAlester and Hartshorne, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This is a proceeding on appeal from an order discharging an attachment. On the 20th day of November 1943, plaintiff commenced an action for rent and caused to be issued a writ in attachment. On the 1st day of December, 1943, the defendant filed a motion to discharge the attachment and on the 8th day of December, 1943, the court entered its order discharging the attachment.

¶2 Plaintiff attempts to prosecute an appeal by transcript. The appeal must be dismissed for the reason that the allegations of error cannot be considered because they arise upon a motion and not upon the record.

¶3 It is the duty of this court to inquire into its own jurisdiction. R. F. Allen & Co. v. Robertson, 180 Okla. 444, 70 P.2d 75; Dunbar v. Phillips Pet. Co., 175 Okla. 489, 53 P.2d 545; Howard v. Arkansaw, 59 Okla. 206, 158 P. 437.

¶4 A motion to discharge property from an attachment is not part of the record unless made so by bill of exceptions or case-made and cannot be brought to this court by transcript. Lamb v. Young, 24 Okla. 614, 104 P. 335; Exchange Nat. Bank v. Merritt, 108 Okla. 184, 235 P. 180.

¶5 The appeal is dismissed.

¶6 GIBSON, C.J., HURST, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, and CORN, JJ., concur.