Haffner v. Commerce Trust Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Haffner v. Commerce Trust Co.

1936 OK 421, 58 P.2d 863, 177 Okla. 313, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 664

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 2, 1936

DocketNo. 27013.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1936 OK 421 (Haffner v. Commerce Trust Co.) 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

Haffner v. Commerce Trust Co., 1936 OK 421, 58 P.2d 863, 177 Okla. 313, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 664 (Okla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On August 17, 1934, plaintiffs in error filed a motion to vacate a judgment entered August 17, 1934, foreclosing a mortgage. The grounds alleged in said motion are irregularities in entering said judgment under subdivision 3 of section 556, O. S. 1931. On the 21st day of August, 1935, the court overruled a motion to vacate. On August 23, 1935, a motion for new trial was filed which was overruled on the 18th day of September, 1935. An attempted appeal is taken from the order overruling motion for new trial, and the case-made was filed herein March 11, 1936. The appeal must be dismissed for the reason that the filing and determination of a motion for new trial was not necessary and did not extend the time in which the appeal could be filed in this court. Harper v, Rutland Savings Bank, 79 *314 Okla. 274, 102 P. 1101; Chesnut v. Overholser, 75 Okla. 190, 182 P. 683; Powell v. Nichols, 26 Okla. 734, 110 P. 762; Butler v. Archard, 130 Okla. 241, 266 P. 1106; United Mining & Milling Co. v. First National Bank of Davis, 167 Okla. 638, 31 P. (2d) 550; Hawkins v. Steil, 172 Okla. 301, 45 P. (2d) 147.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Defendant in error has requested that judgment be granted on the supersedeas bond upon the dismissal of this case. In Nixon v. General Explosives Co., 89 Okla. 184, 214 P. 911, we said:

“Where the appeal has not been perfected as required by law, and this court acquires no jurisdiction of the case, and the appeal is dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, this court is powerless to render judgment on supersedeas bond.”

It appearing, therefore, that this court had no jurisdiction of the appeal, for the reason that the appeal was not taken within six months of the date of the rendition of judgment of the trial court, the motion for judgment on supersedeas bond must be denied.

McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and BUSBY, WELCH, PHELPS, and CORN, JJ., concur. RILEY, BAYLESS, and GIBSON, JJ., absent.

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

PER CURIAM.

On August 17, 1934, plaintiffs in error filed a motion to vacate a judgment entered August 17, 1934, foreclosing a mortgage. The grounds alleged in said motion are irregularities in entering said judgment under subdivision 3 of section 556, O. S. 1931. On the 21st day of August, 1935, the court overruled a motion to vacate. On August 23, 1935, a motion for new trial was filed which was overruled on the 18th day of September, 1935. An attempted appeal is taken from the order overruling motion for new trial, and the case-made was filed herein March 11, 1936. The appeal must be dismissed for the reason that the filing and determination of a motion for new trial was not necessary and did not extend the time in which the appeal could be filed in this court. Harper v, Rutland Savings Bank, 79 *314 Okla. 274, 102 P. 1101; Chesnut v. Overholser, 75 Okla. 190, 182 P. 683; Powell v. Nichols, 26 Okla. 734, 110 P. 762; Butler v. Archard, 130 Okla. 241, 266 P. 1106; United Mining & Milling Co. v. First National Bank of Davis, 167 Okla. 638, 31 P. (2d) 550; Hawkins v. Steil, 172 Okla. 301, 45 P. (2d) 147.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Defendant in error has requested that judgment be granted on the supersedeas bond upon the dismissal of this case. In Nixon v. General Explosives Co., 89 Okla. 184, 214 P. 911, we said:

“Where the appeal has not been perfected as required by law, and this court acquires no jurisdiction of the case, and the appeal is dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, this court is powerless to render judgment on supersedeas bond.”

It appearing, therefore, that this court had no jurisdiction of the appeal, for the reason that the appeal was not taken within six months of the date of the rendition of judgment of the trial court, the motion for judgment on supersedeas bond must be denied.

McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and BUSBY, WELCH, PHELPS, and CORN, JJ., concur. RILEY, BAYLESS, and GIBSON, JJ., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1936 OK 421, 58 P.2d 863, 177 Okla. 313, 1936 Okla. LEXIS 664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haffner-v-commerce-trust-co-okla-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack