First State Bank of Warner v. Porter

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

First State Bank of Warner v. Porter

1917 OK 123, 182 P. 672, 63 Okla. 79, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 496

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 30, 1917

Docket8505

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1917 OK 123 (First State Bank of Warner v. Porter) 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 State Bank of Warner v. Porter, 1917 OK 123, 182 P. 672, 63 Okla. 79, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 496 (Okla. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the proceeding in error, upon the ground, among others, that the same was not commenced within the time provided by law. The record shows that the appeal was taken from a judgment rendered on the 12th day of February, 1916, and an order overruling the motion for new tidal therein, which was entered on the first day of April, 1916. No summons in error has been issued or served up to this time. It, therefore, appears that the proceeding in error was not commenced within the time required by chapter IS, Ress. Daws 1910-11, which provides:

“All proceedings for reversing, vacating and modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of.”

The proceeding in error, therefore, must be dismissed upon the authority of Shelton v. Wallace, 63 Okla. 79, 162 PaC. 1092.

All the Justices concur.

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

KANE, J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the proceeding in error, upon the ground, among others, that the same was not commenced within the time provided by law. The record shows that the appeal was taken from a judgment rendered on the 12th day of February, 1916, and an order overruling the motion for new tidal therein, which was entered on the first day of April, 1916. No summons in error has been issued or served up to this time. It, therefore, appears that the proceeding in error was not commenced within the time required by chapter IS, Ress. Daws 1910-11, which provides:

“All proceedings for reversing, vacating and modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of.”

The proceeding in error, therefore, must be dismissed upon the authority of Shelton v. Wallace, 63 Okla. 79, 162 PaC. 1092.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK 123, 182 P. 672, 63 Okla. 79, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-state-bank-of-warner-v-porter-okla-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack