Dixon v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Dixon v. Rogers

1954 OK 333, 318 P.2d 854, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 765

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 23, 1954

DocketNo. 36403

StatusPublished

This text of 1954 OK 333 (Dixon v. Rogers) 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

Dixon v. Rogers, 1954 OK 333, 318 P.2d 854, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 765 (Okla. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

The defendants filed an application to vacate the judgment on the ground that the summons was irregular. Such proceeding must be by motion under 12 O.S.1951 § 1031. On the 21st day of December, 1953, the trial court overruled the motion. On February 20, 1954, the court overruled a motion for new trial. The notice of intention to appeal was not given until after the latter order. A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason the order overruling the motion for new trial was unnecessary and did not extend the time to give the notice of appeal. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. The filing and determination of the motion for new trial served no purpose to extend the time for commencing or perfecting the appeal. Thomas v. Richey, 171 Okl. 349, 42 P.2d 489.

In Long v. McMahan, Okl., 258 P.2d 616, it is stated:

“ ‘Where a party desiring to appeal fails to give notice in open court of his intention to appeal to this court at the time judgment is rendered or within ten days thereafter if motion for new trial is unnecessary, this court is without jurisdiction to review such judgment and an appeal therefrom will be dismissed.’ ”

Appeal dismissed.

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

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

The defendants filed an application to vacate the judgment on the ground that the summons was irregular. Such proceeding must be by motion under 12 O.S.1951 § 1031. On the 21st day of December, 1953, the trial court overruled the motion. On February 20, 1954, the court overruled a motion for new trial. The notice of intention to appeal was not given until after the latter order. A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason the order overruling the motion for new trial was unnecessary and did not extend the time to give the notice of appeal. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. The filing and determination of the motion for new trial served no purpose to extend the time for commencing or perfecting the appeal. Thomas v. Richey, 171 Okl. 349, 42 P.2d 489.

In Long v. McMahan, Okl., 258 P.2d 616, it is stated:

“ ‘Where a party desiring to appeal fails to give notice in open court of his intention to appeal to this court at the time judgment is rendered or within ten days thereafter if motion for new trial is unnecessary, this court is without jurisdiction to review such judgment and an appeal therefrom will be dismissed.’ ”

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1954 OK 333, 318 P.2d 854, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-rogers-okla-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack