Summary
In Napier v. Dilday, 1913 OK 388, ¶ 1, 132 P. 1085, the appeal was dismissed because the judgment rested upon a finding consented to by the parties.
Summary of this case from Conterez v. O'DonnellOpinion
No. 4810
Opinion Filed June 10, 1913.
APPEAL AND ERROR — Review — Consent Judgment. A case having been tried to the court without the intervention of a jury and the finding upon which the judgment was rendered being made by the consent of all parties, the judgment being rendered according to such finding, there is nothing for this court to review, and the proceeding in error will be dismissed.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Garfield County; Dan Huett, Judge.
Action by P. B. Dilday against S.W. Napier and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Dismissed.
Chalmers B. Wilson and W. H. Hills, for plaintiffs in error.
Robberts Curran, for defendant in error.
The record shows that the finding made against the plaintiffs in error, upon which the judgment was rendered, was with the consent of their counsel. Consent ends all contention between the parties, and there is nothing to review on appeal. Baker v. Van Ness et al., 37 Okla. 122, 130 P. 536; Schmidt v. Oregon Gold Mining Co., 28 Or. 9, 40 P. 406, 1014, 52 Am. St. Rep. 759, and authorities therein cited.
The proceeding in error is dismissed.
All the Justices concur.