¶1 (specially concurring). I concur in the conclusion reached herein, to wit: That the guardianship appointment by the Muskogee county court is the valid one. But this, for the reason that the petition for probate of will designating the appointment of guardian filed in the Muskogee county court vested that court with jurisdiction of the subject-matter under consideration. When the jurisdiction of that court was invoked first, and its machinery placed in motion, it retained its control to the end of the controversy to the exclusion of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. To hold that the time of appointment determines jurisdiction would, in my opinion, promote mad races between courts of coordinate jurisdiction to see which could enter a final order first. This would tend to discourage that deliberation so essential to a determination of the rights of parties in judicial tribunals.
166 Okla. 13
25 P.2d 771
Jackson v. Haney
Decided September 12, 1933
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1933-09-12
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1933-09-12
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2002
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →