Edmondson v. Jones

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Edmondson v. Jones

1912 OK 175, 122 P. 152, 31 Okla. 449, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 72

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 12, 1912

Docket3467

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1912 OK 175 (Edmondson v. Jones) 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

Edmondson v. Jones, 1912 OK 175, 122 P. 152, 31 Okla. 449, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 72 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

*450 KANE, J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, filed by the defendant in error, upon the ground, among others, that the verdict of the jury and the judgment, of the court was made and entered on the 16th day of October, 1911, and the motion for a new trial in said cause was not filed until the 20th day of October, 1911; the filing of same being four days after the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court was entered.

■ As the questions for review are such that it would require a motion for a new trial in order to examine them, and no motion for a new trial was filed within the time prescribed by law, the motion to dismiss must be sustained.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and DUNN, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.

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

*450 KANE, J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, filed by the defendant in error, upon the ground, among others, that the verdict of the jury and the judgment, of the court was made and entered on the 16th day of October, 1911, and the motion for a new trial in said cause was not filed until the 20th day of October, 1911; the filing of same being four days after the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court was entered.

■ As the questions for review are such that it would require a motion for a new trial in order to examine them, and no motion for a new trial was filed within the time prescribed by law, the motion to dismiss must be sustained.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and DUNN, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 175, 122 P. 152, 31 Okla. 449, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmondson-v-jones-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack