Glasco v. Wilson

1942 OK 228, 126 P.2d 713, 190 Okla. 684, 1942 Okla. LEXIS 185
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 9, 1942
DocketNo. 30477.
StatusPublished

This text of 1942 OK 228 (Glasco v. Wilson) 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
Glasco v. Wilson, 1942 OK 228, 126 P.2d 713, 190 Okla. 684, 1942 Okla. LEXIS 185 (Okla. 1942).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a proceeding by transcript from the final order of the trial court, and the plaintiff in error purports to appeal from the motion and the order entered thereon for a new trial. The final judgment was entered the 4th day of December, 1940, and the petition in error with transcript attached was filed July 18, 1941. A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that where the appeal is by transcript motions and rulings are not a part of the record, and when the judgment of the trial court is sought to be reviewed by transcript, the proceeding in error must be commenced in this court within six months from the date of the judgment and cannot be brought within six months from the date of the order overruling the motion for new trial. The following authorities so hold: Burdett v. Burdett, 26 Okla. 416, 109 P. 922; Reed v. Wooley, 31 Okla. 783, 123 P. 1121; Richardson v. Beidleman, 33 Okla. 463, 126 P. 818; Holcombe v. Lawyers’ Co-operative Pub. Co., 35 Okla. 260, 143 P. 1046; Hall v. Jones, 145 Okla. 280, 292 P. 569; Brigham v. Davis, 126 Okla. 90, 258 P. 740; Home Insurance Co. v. Rowsey, 171 Okla. 483, 43 P. 2d 104; Dunbar v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 175 Okla. 489, 53 P. 2d 545.

Since the appeal is by transcript, it was necessary to file the petition in error within six months after the judgment of December 4, 1940. Since this was not done, this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed.

WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, GIBSON, and DA-VISON, JJ., concur. OSBORN, HURST, and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.

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

Related

Holcombe v. Lawyers' Co-Operative Pub. Co.
1912 OK 664 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Dunbar v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
1936 OK 18 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Reed v. Woolly
1912 OK 402 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Home Insurance Co. v. Rowsey
1935 OK 392 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Burdett v. Burdett
1910 OK 120 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Brigham v. Davis
1927 OK 212 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
Richardson Et Vir v. Beidleman
126 P. 818 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Hall v. Jones
1930 OK 475 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Leonard v. Stepp
1936 OK 29 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1942 OK 228, 126 P.2d 713, 190 Okla. 684, 1942 Okla. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glasco-v-wilson-okla-1942.