Eoff v. Seekatz

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Eoff v. Seekatz

1929 OK 179, 276 P. 741, 136 Okla. 145, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 154

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 23, 1929

Docket19375

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1929 OK 179 (Eoff v. Seekatz) 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

Eoff v. Seekatz, 1929 OK 179, 276 P. 741, 136 Okla. 145, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 154 (Okla. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

*146 PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the order of the court of common pleas of Tulsa county made and entered on the 16th day of January, 1928, overruling a motion to vacate the judgment formerly rendered in said cause and to quash a writ of execution.

The record' is presented as a ease-made, and is also certified' to by the clerk; of the court as a transcript. An examination of the certificate of the trial judge settling and signing the record as a ease-made shows the signature of the trial judge thereto is not attested by the clerk of the court and the seal of the court is not affixed thereto, and as a case-made it is a nullity, brings nothing before this court for review, and cannot he corrected in this respect after the expiration of the six months allowed by law in which to appeal. Campbell v. Williams, 104 Okla. 274, 231 Pac. 226; State ex rel. Gross v. American National Bank, 107 Okla. 265, 232 Pac. 52; Hillery v. Cox, 125 Okla. 124, 256 Pac. 915.

The assignments of error embraced in the petition in error — that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial, in overruling the motion to quash writ of execution, and that the court 'erred in admitting evidence upon the part of the defendant in error — cannot be reviewed on transcript. Richardson v. Biedleman et al., 33 Okla. 463, 126 Pac. 817; Davis v. DeGeer, 91 Okla. 111, 216 Pac. 159; Hillery v. Cox, supra.

There is therefore nothing before this court for review, and the appeal is dismissed.

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

*146 PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the order of the court of common pleas of Tulsa county made and entered on the 16th day of January, 1928, overruling a motion to vacate the judgment formerly rendered in said cause and to quash a writ of execution.

The record' is presented as a ease-made, and is also certified' to by the clerk; of the court as a transcript. An examination of the certificate of the trial judge settling and signing the record as a ease-made shows the signature of the trial judge thereto is not attested by the clerk of the court and the seal of the court is not affixed thereto, and as a case-made it is a nullity, brings nothing before this court for review, and cannot he corrected in this respect after the expiration of the six months allowed by law in which to appeal. Campbell v. Williams, 104 Okla. 274, 231 Pac. 226; State ex rel. Gross v. American National Bank, 107 Okla. 265, 232 Pac. 52; Hillery v. Cox, 125 Okla. 124, 256 Pac. 915.

The assignments of error embraced in the petition in error — that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial, in overruling the motion to quash writ of execution, and that the court 'erred in admitting evidence upon the part of the defendant in error — cannot be reviewed on transcript. Richardson v. Biedleman et al., 33 Okla. 463, 126 Pac. 817; Davis v. DeGeer, 91 Okla. 111, 216 Pac. 159; Hillery v. Cox, supra.

There is therefore nothing before this court for review, and the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1929 OK 179, 276 P. 741, 136 Okla. 145, 1929 Okla. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eoff-v-seekatz-okla-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack