Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee

1913 OK 647, 136 P. 591, 39 Okla. 728, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 576

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 18, 1913

Docket3051

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 1913 OK 647 (Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee) 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

Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee, 1913 OK 647, 136 P. 591, 39 Okla. 728, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 576 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

*729 Opinion by

THACKER, C.

This case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, judgment was entered on August 19, 1911, motion for new trial was filed on August 22, 1911, and on September 2, 1911, the motion for new trial was overruled and an order entered purporting to extend the time in which case for this court might be made and served to September 7, 1911. On September 6, 1911, case-made was served, settled, and signed; and the jurisdiction of this court depends upon whether this order of September 2, 1911, was within the three days specifically allowed by statute (section 4444, St. Okla. 1893, now changed by section 5242, Rev. Laws 1910, to 15 days) within which a case might be made and served; and this question, in turn, depends upon whether the appeal should have been from the judgment of from the order overruling the motion for new trial, which, in turn, depends upon whether a motion for new trial is authorized by the statute when all questions of fact have been eliminated by agreed statement of facts

These questions seem to be definitely settled by the decisions of this court; and it thus appears: (1) That a motion for new trial is unauthorized in such cases, and the appeal should have been from the judgment (Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County v. Porter et al., 19 Okla. 173, 92 Pac. 152; Schnitsler v. Green, 5 Kan. App. 656, 47 Pac. 990; Ritchie et al. v. Kansas N. & D. Ry., 55 Kan. 36, 39 Pac. 718); and (2) that, the time within which to make and serve a case having expired on the expiration of the third day after such judgment without order extending the same, the case-made was not served in time, and this court has not acquired jurisdiction. Boulanger v. Midland Valley Mercantile Co., 36 Okla. 120, 128 Pac. 113; Reed v. Woolly, 31 Okla. 783, 123 Pac. 1121; Doorley v. Buford & George Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 594, 49 Pac. 936; Williams v. New State Bank, 38 Okla. 328, 132 Pac. 1087; American Nat. Bank of McAlester et al. v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 31 Okla. 533, 122 Pac. 507.

The appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

*729 Opinion by

THACKER, C.

This case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, judgment was entered on August 19, 1911, motion for new trial was filed on August 22, 1911, and on September 2, 1911, the motion for new trial was overruled and an order entered purporting to extend the time in which case for this court might be made and served to September 7, 1911. On September 6, 1911, case-made was served, settled, and signed; and the jurisdiction of this court depends upon whether this order of September 2, 1911, was within the three days specifically allowed by statute (section 4444, St. Okla. 1893, now changed by section 5242, Rev. Laws 1910, to 15 days) within which a case might be made and served; and this question, in turn, depends upon whether the appeal should have been from the judgment of from the order overruling the motion for new trial, which, in turn, depends upon whether a motion for new trial is authorized by the statute when all questions of fact have been eliminated by agreed statement of facts

These questions seem to be definitely settled by the decisions of this court; and it thus appears: (1) That a motion for new trial is unauthorized in such cases, and the appeal should have been from the judgment (Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County v. Porter et al., 19 Okla. 173, 92 Pac. 152; Schnitsler v. Green, 5 Kan. App. 656, 47 Pac. 990; Ritchie et al. v. Kansas N. & D. Ry., 55 Kan. 36, 39 Pac. 718); and (2) that, the time within which to make and serve a case having expired on the expiration of the third day after such judgment without order extending the same, the case-made was not served in time, and this court has not acquired jurisdiction. Boulanger v. Midland Valley Mercantile Co., 36 Okla. 120, 128 Pac. 113; Reed v. Woolly, 31 Okla. 783, 123 Pac. 1121; Doorley v. Buford & George Mfg. Co., 5 Okla. 594, 49 Pac. 936; Williams v. New State Bank, 38 Okla. 328, 132 Pac. 1087; American Nat. Bank of McAlester et al. v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co., 31 Okla. 533, 122 Pac. 507.

The appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 647, 136 P. 591, 39 Okla. 728, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-r-i-p-ry-co-v-city-of-shawnee-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack