FIRST NAT. BANK OF HENNESSEY v. HARDING.

Annotate this Case

FIRST NAT. BANK OF HENNESSEY v. HARDING.
1913 OK 174
130 P. 905
35 Okla. 650
Case Number: 4772
Decided: 03/11/1913
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

FIRST NAT. BANK OF HENNESSEY
v.
HARDING.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Parties--Garnishee. Where it is sought to reverse an order discharging garnishees from liability, they must be made parties to the proceedings in this court; and a petition in error to which the principal defendants alone are made parties will be dismissed.

Error from District Court, Kingfisher County; James B. Cullison, Judge.

Action by First National Bank of Hennessey, Oklahoma, against A. M. Harding. From an order discharging a garnishee, plaintiff brings error. On motion to dismiss. Granted.

P. S. Nagle, for plaintiff in error.
F. L. Boynton, for defendant in error.

DUNN, J.

¶1 This case presents error from the district court of Kingfisher county. Plaintiff in error seeks to have reviewed an order of the district court which discharged a garnishee. The only parties made plaintiff and defendant in error are the original parties to the action, and counsel for defendant in error have filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding for the reason that the garnishee was not made a party. That all parties who will be affected by the judgment of this court must be made parties in this court is fundamental, and the Supreme Court of Kansas, passing on this specific question in the case of Yerkes v. McGuire et al., 54 Kan. 614, 38 P. 781, held that:

"Where it is sought to reverse an order discharging garnishees from liability, they must be made parties to the proceedings in this court; and a petition in error to which the principal defendants alone are made parties will be dismissed."

¶2 This case was afterwards followed by this court in the case of Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Dill et al., 25 Okla. 395, 106 P. 817.

¶3 The motion to dismiss is sustained.

¶4 All the Justices concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.