First Nat. Bank of Hobart v. Spink

1908 OK 128, 97 P. 1019, 21 Okla. 468, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 140
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 24, 1908
DocketNo. 2063, Okla. T.
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 1908 OK 128 (First Nat. Bank of Hobart v. Spink) 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
First Nat. Bank of Hobart v. Spink, 1908 OK 128, 97 P. 1019, 21 Okla. 468, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 140 (Okla. 1908).

Opinion

Williams, C. J.

On the 30th day of July, A. D. 1906, before the Hon. F. E. Gillette, judge of the district court for Caddo *469 and Kiowa counties, in chambers, in the city of Anadarko, after due notice motion was presented to have the herein garnishment dissolved, and the garnishees discharged. After hearing said motion, same was sustained, the garnishment dissolved, and the garnishee discharged. Thereupon plaintiff prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the territory, and same was allowed, at the same time 30 days being allowed plaintiff to make and serve a case-made, and 10 days to suggest amendments, to be settled upon 5 dajrs’ notice by either party. Pending appeal, execution was to be stayed, upon plaintiff giving supersedeas bond in the sum of $100.

The petition in error was not filed with the clerk of said Supreme Court until the 1st day of December, 3906, over four months after the entering of said order appealed from. Said petition in error not having been filed with the clerk of said court, of which this court is, by the terms of the enabling act (Act June 16, 1906, c. 3335, § 13, 34 Stat. 275 [TJ. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 150]), the successor, within 30 days from the discharge or dissolution of said garnishment, this court is without jurisdiction to review the action of the judge in chambers, in dissolving the same. Section 4759, Wilson’s Rev. & Ann. St. 1903; Herring et al. v. Wiggins, Treasurer, 7 Okla. 313, 54 Pac. 483.

The appeal is dismissed, at the cost of the plaintiff in error.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Jones v. Welborn
1937 OK 496 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Egolf v. Rice
1926 OK 454 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Dunlap v. Western Oil Station Co.
1926 OK 86 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Exchange Nat. Bank of Ardmore v. Merritt
1925 OK 273 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Mitchener v. City Com'rs, City of Okmulgee
1924 OK 645 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
First Nat. Bank v. Ada Music Co.
1923 OK 143 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Berry-Beall Dry Goods Co. v. Adams
1922 OK 326 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
Mounts Oil, Gas & Mineral Co. v. Sandals, Griffin & Co.
150 P. 1045 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
White v. Hooker
1915 OK 87 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Farmers' Merchants' State Bank of Eldorado v. Cox
138 P. 148 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Kennedy Mercantile Co. v. Dobson
1914 OK 20 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Ray v. Wade
1912 OK 206 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Smith v. Eldred
1912 OK 65 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Bash v. Howald
1910 OK 313 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Pioneer Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Incorporated Town of Chelsea
1909 OK 120 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1908 OK 128, 97 P. 1019, 21 Okla. 468, 1908 Okla. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bank-of-hobart-v-spink-okla-1908.