Coleman v. Adams

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Coleman v. Adams

1916 OK 444, 155 P. 1150, 53 Okla. 357, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 410

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 11, 1916

Docket7760

StatusPublished

This text of 1916 OK 444 (Coleman v. Adams) 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

Coleman v. Adams, 1916 OK 444, 155 P. 1150, 53 Okla. 357, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 410 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause was tried to the court on an agreed statement of facts, attached to which were certain exhibits. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff on March 16, 1915, and defendants bring the case here.

The motion to dismiss is sustained, for the reason that the case-made was not served on the opposite party or his attorney within 15 days after judgment was rendered, or within any valid extension of time, as required by Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 5242; and this, too, although the motion for new trial was filed within three days after judgment, and on May 31st was overruled, and plaintiffs in error granted time within which to perfect their appeal.. This for the reason stated in Manes v. Hoss, 28 Okla. 489, 114 Pac. 698. There we said:

“Where a motion for a new trial is unnecessary to present for review to this court the matters complained *358 of in the petition in error, the filing of such motion and decision. thereon by the court is ineffectual for the purpose „ of extending the time within which to perfect an appeal; and the time begins to run from the rendition of the judgment appealed from, and not from the order overruling the motion for a new trial. Springfield Fire & M. Ins. Co. v. Gish, Brook & Co., 28 Okla. 824, 102 Pac. 708.”

The appeal is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause was tried to the court on an agreed statement of facts, attached to which were certain exhibits. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff on March 16, 1915, and defendants bring the case here.

The motion to dismiss is sustained, for the reason that the case-made was not served on the opposite party or his attorney within 15 days after judgment was rendered, or within any valid extension of time, as required by Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 5242; and this, too, although the motion for new trial was filed within three days after judgment, and on May 31st was overruled, and plaintiffs in error granted time within which to perfect their appeal.. This for the reason stated in Manes v. Hoss, 28 Okla. 489, 114 Pac. 698. There we said:

“Where a motion for a new trial is unnecessary to present for review to this court the matters complained *358 of in the petition in error, the filing of such motion and decision. thereon by the court is ineffectual for the purpose „ of extending the time within which to perfect an appeal; and the time begins to run from the rendition of the judgment appealed from, and not from the order overruling the motion for a new trial. Springfield Fire & M. Ins. Co. v. Gish, Brook & Co., 28 Okla. 824, 102 Pac. 708.”

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 444, 155 P. 1150, 53 Okla. 357, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-adams-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack