Hamby v. National Bank of Commerce

1923 OK 473, 217 P. 145, 95 Okla. 13, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 70
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJuly 10, 1923
Docket10323
StatusPublished

This text of 1923 OK 473 (Hamby v. National Bank of Commerce) 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
Hamby v. National Bank of Commerce, 1923 OK 473, 217 P. 145, 95 Okla. 13, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 70 (Okla. 1923).

Opinion

KENNAMER, J.

L. H. Hamby, plaintiff, commenced this action in the district court of Tillman county on the 23rd day of October, 1915, against the National Bank of Commerce, defendant, to recover damage? in the sum of $45,149.0S.

The defendant filed a démíirrer to the plaintiff’s petition, and the court, on the 15th day of December, 1917, entered an order sustaining the general demurrer of the defendant to the plaintiff’s petition. The plaintiff elected to stand upon his petition as filed and excepted to the ruling of the court, and by this appeal seeks to have the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer reviewed. The petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on November 1, 191S, about 11 months from the date the court entered its order sustaining the demurrer.

The court has repeatedly held that, where the petition in error is not filed in this court until after the expiration of' six months from the date of the final judgment or order of the trial court which the appellant seeks to have ¡reviewed, this court has no jurisdiction to review such judgment or *14 order, and the appeal will be dismissed. Davis v. Revelle, 75 Okla. 8, 180 Pac. 958; Williams v. Thompson, 68 Okla. 301, 174 Pac. 268; Olentine v. Anderson, 71 Oklahoma, 176 Pac. 82; Drake v. Ruble, 71 Oklahoma, 176 Pac. 920; Perry v. Werline, 77 Okla. 92, 186 Pac. 940; First State Bank of Warner v. Porter, 63 Okla. 79, 182 Pac. 672; Star Mill & Elevator Company v. Bruce, 77 Okla. 113, 186 Pac. 940; Ham v. Veasey, 79 Okla. 133, 191 Pac. 1094; Wagnon v. Davison, 79 Okla. 209, 192 Pac. 265.

It is clear from the facts, as disclosed by the record in the instant case, that the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

JOHNSON, C. J., and COCHRAN, BRAN-SON, and MASON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ham v. Veasey
1920 OK 286 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Williams v. Thompson
1918 OK 433 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Perry v. Werline
1920 OK 10 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Davis v. Revelle
1919 OK 92 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
Olentine v. Anderson
1918 OK 623 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
First State Bank of Warner v. Porter
1917 OK 123 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Star Mill & Elevator Co. v. Bruce
1920 OK 18 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Wagnon v. Davison
1920 OK 303 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Drake v. Ruble
1918 OK 721 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1923 OK 473, 217 P. 145, 95 Okla. 13, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 70, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamby-v-national-bank-of-commerce-okla-1923.