American Nat. Bank of Wetumika v. Hale-Halsell Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

American Nat. Bank of Wetumika v. Hale-Halsell Co.

1935 OK 25, 41 P.2d 830, 170 Okla. 366, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 687

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 22, 1935

Docket26047

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1935 OK 25 (American Nat. Bank of Wetumika v. Hale-Halsell Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Nat. Bank of Wetumika v. Hale-Halsell Co., 1935 OK 25, 41 P.2d 830, 170 Okla. 366, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 687 (Okla. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

*367 PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced in the district court of Hughes county by the filing of a petition by HaleHalsell Company against the American National Bank on a certificate of deposit for $2,080. On the 6th day of April, 1934, a demurrer was filed to the petition, and on the 4th day of June, 1934, the court tried the cause, overruling the demurrer, and there was introduced in evidence the certificate of deposit, and judgment was rendered for tlie plaintiff. No notice of intention to appeal was given at this time, or within ten days thereafter. A motion for new trial was filed on the 4th day of June, 1934, and an order overruling the same was made on the 18th day of June, 1934.

A motion to dismiss has been filed in which movant states that since no notice of appeal was given at the date of the rendition of the judgment or within ten days thereafter, the cause should be dismissed. The appeal is by transcript.

In the case of Chase v. Brynes, 147 Okla. 118, 294 P. 786, the court held that where the appeal is by transcript, the motion for new trial and, the order overruling the same are no part of the record, and that where no notice of appeal was given at the date of the rendition of the judgment or within ten days thereafter, the appeal should be dismissed. See, also, Richardson v. Beidleman, 33 Okla. 463, 126 P. 818; Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk, 35 Okla. 439, 130 P. 138; Brigham v. Davis, 126 Okla. 90, 258 P. 740; In re Welfelt’s Estate, 142 Okla. 110, 285 P. 843.

The respondent states that the appeal is from the order of the court entered June 4, 1934, overruling the demurrer. The statement is made that the minutes of the clerk show that notice of appeal was given at that time. This court held in the following cases that a mere recital of the clerk’s minutes is no part of the record or proceedings. Lillard v. Meisberger, 113 Okla. 228, 240 P. 1067; Nelson v. Pittsburg Mort. Inv. Co., 43 Okla. 208, 141 P. 1197; Waggoner v. Mounts, 44 Okla. 128, 143 P. 1196; Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gish, 23 Okla. 824, 102 P. 708; Ellis v. Carr, 25 Okla. 874, 108 P. 1101; Casner v. Smith, 28 Okla. 303, 114 P. 255; Fife v. Cornelous, 35 Okla. 402, 124 P. 957; Mobley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 44 Okla. 788, 145 P. 321; Ford v. McIntosh, 22 Okla. 423, 98 P. 341; In re Garland, 52 Okla. 585, 153 P. 153; Courtney v. Moore, 51 Okla. 628, 151 P. 1178.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*367 PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced in the district court of Hughes county by the filing of a petition by HaleHalsell Company against the American National Bank on a certificate of deposit for $2,080. On the 6th day of April, 1934, a demurrer was filed to the petition, and on the 4th day of June, 1934, the court tried the cause, overruling the demurrer, and there was introduced in evidence the certificate of deposit, and judgment was rendered for tlie plaintiff. No notice of intention to appeal was given at this time, or within ten days thereafter. A motion for new trial was filed on the 4th day of June, 1934, and an order overruling the same was made on the 18th day of June, 1934.

A motion to dismiss has been filed in which movant states that since no notice of appeal was given at the date of the rendition of the judgment or within ten days thereafter, the cause should be dismissed. The appeal is by transcript.

In the case of Chase v. Brynes, 147 Okla. 118, 294 P. 786, the court held that where the appeal is by transcript, the motion for new trial and, the order overruling the same are no part of the record, and that where no notice of appeal was given at the date of the rendition of the judgment or within ten days thereafter, the appeal should be dismissed. See, also, Richardson v. Beidleman, 33 Okla. 463, 126 P. 818; Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk, 35 Okla. 439, 130 P. 138; Brigham v. Davis, 126 Okla. 90, 258 P. 740; In re Welfelt’s Estate, 142 Okla. 110, 285 P. 843.

The respondent states that the appeal is from the order of the court entered June 4, 1934, overruling the demurrer. The statement is made that the minutes of the clerk show that notice of appeal was given at that time. This court held in the following cases that a mere recital of the clerk’s minutes is no part of the record or proceedings. Lillard v. Meisberger, 113 Okla. 228, 240 P. 1067; Nelson v. Pittsburg Mort. Inv. Co., 43 Okla. 208, 141 P. 1197; Waggoner v. Mounts, 44 Okla. 128, 143 P. 1196; Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gish, 23 Okla. 824, 102 P. 708; Ellis v. Carr, 25 Okla. 874, 108 P. 1101; Casner v. Smith, 28 Okla. 303, 114 P. 255; Fife v. Cornelous, 35 Okla. 402, 124 P. 957; Mobley v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 44 Okla. 788, 145 P. 321; Ford v. McIntosh, 22 Okla. 423, 98 P. 341; In re Garland, 52 Okla. 585, 153 P. 153; Courtney v. Moore, 51 Okla. 628, 151 P. 1178.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1935 OK 25, 41 P.2d 830, 170 Okla. 366, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-nat-bank-of-wetumika-v-hale-halsell-co-okla-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack