TANKERSLEY INV. CO. v. R. H. SIEGFRIED CO.

TANKERSLEY INV. CO. v. R. H. SIEGFRIED CO.
1950 OK 53
215 P.2d 547
202 Okla. 475
Case Number: 32148, 32230
Decided: 02/28/1950
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus

¶0 COURTS - appeal dismissed where appellant without capacity to prosecute appeals.
Where the right to prosecute and maintain an appeal is necessarily dependent upon the alleged ownership of stock in a corporation, the appeal will be dismissed upon the final determination by this court in a companion case that the appellant owns no stock in said corporation.

Cantrell, Carey & McCloud, Oklahoma City, Edward M. Box, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Hudson & Hudson, Tulsa, for defendants in error.

ARNOLD, V.C.J.

¶1 The appeal in cause No. 32,230 is by Earl Tankersley from a judgment of the District Court of Tulsa County in favor of R. H. Siegfried Company, a co- partnership composed of R. H. and R. M. Siegfried, against Tankersley Investment Company, a corporation.

¶2 The appeal in cause No. 32,148 is by Earl Tankersley from a judgment of the District Court of Tulsa County denying the motion of plaintiffs therein to vacate the previous order of said court appointing a general receiver for Tankersley Investment Company, a corporation.

¶3 These cases were briefed by Earl Tankersley upon the theory that he was in fact the owner of stock in the Tankersley Investment Company. This court on May 17, 1949, in the appeal of Tankersley Investment Company et al. v. Tankersley Investment Company ex rel. Tankersley et al., Okl., 210 P.2d 167, reversed the judgment of the District Court of Tulsa County. We held therein that Earl Tankersley was not the owner of any stock in the Tankersley Investment Company.

¶4 After the mandate issued in said cause and the opinion became final, motion to dismiss these causes of action was filed, response called for but plaintiff in error failed to respond within the time extended.

¶5 It having been fully determined by this court that Earl Tankersley had no interest in the Tankersley Investment Company, he had no capacity to prosecute said appeals and all issues of law and fact involved in said causes have been determined.

¶6 Appeals dismissed.