ANTHONY v. COVINGTON

Annotate this Case

ANTHONY v. COVINGTON
1942 OK 376
145 P.2d 407
191 Okla. 483
Case Number: 30967
Decided: 11/17/1942
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

ANTHONY
v.
COVINGTON et al.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Matters raised in original action in Supreme Court not considered where same rendered moot by decision of court.
Where an original action is filed in this court, and the matters sought to be raised therein have become moot by reason of a decision of this court, and no practical result can follow the granting of the relief sought by such original action, this court will not consider the questions or matters raised in such original action.

Original action in the Supreme Court by S. W. Anthony against Pauline Covington et al., ancillary to Case No. 29213 (Anthony v. Covington et al., 187 Okla. 27, 110 P.2d 461), seeking to enjoin further proceedings. Action dismissed.

John R. Miller, L. O. Lytle, and Roy T. Wildman, all of Sapulpa, for plaintiff.
Pierce & Rucker, of Oklahoma City, Johnson & Jones, of Bristow, and Dale F. Rainey, of Okmulgee, for defendants.

CORN, V. C. J.

¶1 Plaintiff has filed an original action in this court against Pauline Covington and other named defendants, her attorneys, as an ancillary proceeding to case No. 29213, S. W. Anthony v. E. L. Covington et al., 187 Okla. 27, 110 P.2d 461.

¶2 By this action plaintiff alleges that he seeks to protect the judgment of this court in that case. The petition sets forth at length the earlier proceedings, both in the lower court and on appeal to this court, and closes with the prayer that the defendant or any person who might appear for her, be forever enjoined from instituting any further action against S. W. Anthony upon the cause of action pleaded by Pauline Covington.

¶3 June 30, 1942, we rendered an opinion in case No. 30692, Pauline Covington et al v. S. W. Anthony, 191 Okla. 266, 128 P.2d 1012, affirming the judgment of the superior court of Creek county, Bristow division, wherein judgment was rendered for the defendant and the plaintiff, Pauline Covington, was enjoined from proceeding further in any suit based upon this same cause of action.

¶4 Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that it is unnecessary to consider the matters sought to be presented herein, inasmuch as the questions sought to be raised are now moot by reason of such judgment, and the affirmance of said judgment by this court is sufficient to afford this plaintiff the relief sought in the present action.

¶5 Action dismissed.

¶6 WELCH, C. J., and OSBORN, GIBSON, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. RILEY and BAYLESS, JJ., absent.

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.