Barnett v. Frederick

1912 OK 322, 124 P. 57, 33 Okla. 49, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 633
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 14, 1912
Docket1711
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1912 OK 322 (Barnett v. Frederick) 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
Barnett v. Frederick, 1912 OK 322, 124 P. 57, 33 Okla. 49, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 633 (Okla. 1912).

Opinion

KANE, J.

The only question involved herein is, Does a decree of divorce take effect so as to affect property rights before the expiration of six months from the day and date when such judgment was rendered? The court below answered the question in the affirmative, and we are of the opinion that its answer is correct. That has been the law in this jurisdiction for a great many years. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Dale in 1894, it was held that section 4553, p. 877, St. of Okla. 1893 (section 6182, Comp. Laws 1909), which provides that “every decree of divorce shall recite the day and date when the judgment was rendered in the cause, and that the decree does not become absolute and take effect until the 'expiration of six months from said time,” must be considered to apply only to that portion of section 6180 of the same chapter which relates to appeals and remarrying within six months following the date upon which divorce was granted. In re Smith, 2 Okla. 153, 37 Pac. 1099. The Smith case was cited with approval in Durland v. Durland, 67 Kan. 734, 74 Pac. 274, 63 L. R. A. 959, where statutes identical with ours were construed and the same conclusion reached. The Supreme Court of Kansas has followed Durland v. Durland, supra, in Philips v. Philips, 69 Kan. 324, 76 Pac. 842; Jacobs v. Gaskill, 69 Kan. 872, 77 Pac. 550; Woolverton v. Johnston, 69 Kan. 708; 77 Pac. 559; Cooper v. Bower, 78 Kan. 156, 96 Pac. 59.

On the authority of the foregoing cases, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES, WILLIAMS, ánd DUNN, JJ-, concur. .

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

Related

Woods County v. Tucker
1957 OK 134 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1957)
Trent v. Union Pacific Coal Company
231 P.2d 180 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1951)
Perkins v. Perkins
237 S.W.2d 659 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Jackson v. Jackson
1938 OK 85 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Plummer v. Davis
1934 OK 499 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)
Brown v. Capps
1933 OK 208 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Steiner v. Steiner
1932 OK 310 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Atkeson v. Sovereign Camp W. O. W.
1923 OK 233 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Dunlap v. Dunlap
1923 OK 75 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1912 OK 322, 124 P. 57, 33 Okla. 49, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 633, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-frederick-okla-1912.