First National Bank in Duncan v. Wallace

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

First National Bank in Duncan v. Wallace

1940 OK 461, 107 P.2d 536, 188 Okla. 183, 1940 Okla. LEXIS 417

Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided November 19, 1940·No. No. 29388.·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court entered on a garnishment proceeding. A motion to quash and dissolve the garnishment was filed, and thereupon, upon due consideration, an order was entered on February 24, 1939, dissolving said garnishment. The petition in error with case-made attached was filed August 8, 1939. A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that under section 555, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 983, an order which dissolves a garnishment can only be reviewed where the appeal is taken within 30 days from the date of the order. The appeal must be dismissed under the rule announced in Security Bldg. & Loan Ass’n of Oklahoma City v. Ward, 174 Okla. 238, 50 P. 2d 651; Berry-Beall Dry Goods Co. v. Adams, 87 Okla. 291, 211 P. 79. These cases, after reiterating the rule announced above with regard to attachment, also hold that the same rule is applicable in an appeal from an order which discharges a garnishment.

Appeal dismissed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and OSBORN, HURST, and NEFF, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court entered on a garnishment proceeding. A motion to quash and dissolve the garnishment was filed, and thereupon, upon due consideration, an order was entered on February 24, 1939, dissolving said garnishment. The petition in error with case-made attached was filed August 8, 1939. A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that under section 555, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 983, an order which dissolves a garnishment can only be reviewed where the appeal is taken within 30 days from the date of the order. The appeal must be dismissed under the rule announced in Security Bldg. & Loan Ass’n of Oklahoma City v. Ward, 174 Okla. 238, 50 P. 2d 651; Berry-Beall Dry Goods Co. v. Adams, 87 Okla. 291, 211 P. 79. These cases, after reiterating the rule announced above with regard to attachment, also hold that the same rule is applicable in an appeal from an order which discharges a garnishment.

Appeal dismissed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and OSBORN, HURST, and NEFF, JJ., concur.

First National Bank in Duncan v. Wallace, 1940 OK 461, 107 P.2d 536, 188 Okla. 183, 1940 Okla. LEXIS 417 (Okla. 1940).

Pincite

1940 OK 461 (First National Bank in Duncan v. Wallace) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related