Blackmon v. Reid

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Blackmon v. Reid

1934 OK 730, 38 P.2d 957, 170 Okla. 122, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 694

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 18, 1934

Docket25965

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1934 OK 730 (Blackmon v. Reid) 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

Blackmon v. Reid, 1934 OK 730, 38 P.2d 957, 170 Okla. 122, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 694 (Okla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the 27th day of April, 1934, tbe plaintiff obtained a judgment in tbe district court, and on October 26, 1934, tbe proceedings in this court were commenced by tbe filing of a purported transcript of the record with petition in error attached. The record does not show that a motion for new trial was filed and passed upon, although the purported transcript contains a copy of a motion for new trial. The same is no part of the record and cannot be reviewed by this court except upon proper presentation in a case-made or by bill of exceptions. Chase v. Byrnes, 147 Okla. 118, 294 P. 786; In re Welfelt’s Estate, 142 Okla. 110, 285 P. 843; Brigham v. Davis, 126 Okla. 90, 258 P. 740: Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk, 35 Okla. 439, 130 P. 138; Richardson v. Beidleman, 33 Okla. 463, 126 P. 818.

It does not appear anywhere in the record that a notice of appeal was ever given in open court at the time of the rendition of the judgment, the order of the court overruling the motion for new trial or within 10 days thereafter, and in the absence of proper notice of appeal this court is without jurisdiction to review the action of the trial court. Smith v. Morris, 166 Okla. 285, 27 P. (2d) 631. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On the 27th day of April, 1934, tbe plaintiff obtained a judgment in tbe district court, and on October 26, 1934, tbe proceedings in this court were commenced by tbe filing of a purported transcript of the record with petition in error attached. The record does not show that a motion for new trial was filed and passed upon, although the purported transcript contains a copy of a motion for new trial. The same is no part of the record and cannot be reviewed by this court except upon proper presentation in a case-made or by bill of exceptions. Chase v. Byrnes, 147 Okla. 118, 294 P. 786; In re Welfelt’s Estate, 142 Okla. 110, 285 P. 843; Brigham v. Davis, 126 Okla. 90, 258 P. 740: Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk, 35 Okla. 439, 130 P. 138; Richardson v. Beidleman, 33 Okla. 463, 126 P. 818.

It does not appear anywhere in the record that a notice of appeal was ever given in open court at the time of the rendition of the judgment, the order of the court overruling the motion for new trial or within 10 days thereafter, and in the absence of proper notice of appeal this court is without jurisdiction to review the action of the trial court. Smith v. Morris, 166 Okla. 285, 27 P. (2d) 631. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK 730, 38 P.2d 957, 170 Okla. 122, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackmon-v-reid-okla-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack