Bowers v. Cheever

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bowers v. Cheever

1923 OK 603, 218 P. 698, 95 Okla. 71, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 86

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 18, 1923

Docket12235

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1923 OK 603 (Bowers v. Cheever) 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

Bowers v. Cheever, 1923 OK 603, 218 P. 698, 95 Okla. 71, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 86 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

COOPERAN, J.

Defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss appeal of the plaintiff in error for the reason that the motion for a new trial was not filed within the time required hy law. On November 23, 1920, the trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s answer and rendered judgment for the defendant in this ease. On the same day, counsel for plaintiff suggested that a motion for a new trial, alleging all the statutory grounds, be considered filed. A motion was considered filed as suggested and immediately overruled by the trial court, to iwhich plaintiff excepted, gave notice of appeal, and on application was granted an extension of time in which to prepare and serve case-made. However, the motion for a new trial was not actually filed until January 22, 1921, 60 days after the pretended motion was overruled.

The facts in ¡this case are the same as the facts in Clark v. Cawdell, 72 Oklahoma, 181 Pac. 285, in which the court said:

“The motion not having been filed within three days, as required by the statute (see. 5035, Rev. Laws, 1910), the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed on authority of Ronne v. Hirsh, 71 Oklahoma, 178 Pac. 88, and Ewert v. Wills, 72 Oklahoma, 178 Pac. 87.”

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

COOPERAN, J.

Defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss appeal of the plaintiff in error for the reason that the motion for a new trial was not filed within the time required hy law. On November 23, 1920, the trial court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s answer and rendered judgment for the defendant in this ease. On the same day, counsel for plaintiff suggested that a motion for a new trial, alleging all the statutory grounds, be considered filed. A motion was considered filed as suggested and immediately overruled by the trial court, to iwhich plaintiff excepted, gave notice of appeal, and on application was granted an extension of time in which to prepare and serve case-made. However, the motion for a new trial was not actually filed until January 22, 1921, 60 days after the pretended motion was overruled.

The facts in ¡this case are the same as the facts in Clark v. Cawdell, 72 Oklahoma, 181 Pac. 285, in which the court said:

“The motion not having been filed within three days, as required by the statute (see. 5035, Rev. Laws, 1910), the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed on authority of Ronne v. Hirsh, 71 Oklahoma, 178 Pac. 88, and Ewert v. Wills, 72 Oklahoma, 178 Pac. 87.”

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 603, 218 P. 698, 95 Okla. 71, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowers-v-cheever-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack