First State Bank of Warner v. Porter

1917 OK 123, 182 P. 672, 63 Okla. 79, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 496
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided January 30, 1917·No. 8505·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

1917 OK 123 (First State Bank of Warner v. Porter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Larrick v. Gilloon
176 Cal. App. 2d 408 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Hamby v. National Bank of Commerce
1923 OK 473 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Hamby v. Carr
1923 OK 472 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1923)
Hall v. Bank of Commerce of Okmulgee
1920 OK 366 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Ham v. Veasey
1920 OK 286 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)