Hartsell v. Edwards

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hartsell v. Edwards

1911 OK 232, 116 P. 942, 29 Okla. 119, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 253

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 27, 1911

Docket1735

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1911 OK 232 (Hartsell v. Edwards) 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

Hartsell v. Edwards, 1911 OK 232, 116 P. 942, 29 Okla. 119, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 253 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

DUNN, J.

This case presents error from the county court of Jefferson county, and was filed in this court May 31, 1910, to review a judgment of that court dated January IT, 1910. May 22, 1911, counsel for defendants in error filed their motion to dismiss the proceeding because plaintiff has failed to have summons in error issued and served upon defendants in error or either of them within one year from the date of the judgment from which the appeal is sought to be prosecuted. The records of this court show that pimcipe for summons- was filed on October 27, 1910, and summons issued, but that no return was made upon the same, and defendants in error and their counsel each make oath that no summons in error was ever served upon them, and there is no evidence of any waiver or general appearance having been made. Under these circumstances the motion to dismiss must be sustained. Coleman v. Eaton, 26 Okla. 858, 110 Pac. 672; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bradham, 24 Okla. 250, 103 Pac. 591; McMurtry v. Byrd et al., 23 Okla. 597, 101 Pac. 1117; and Court of Honor v. Wallace, 23 Okla. 734, 102 Pac. 111.

The action is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

DUNN, J.

This case presents error from the county court of Jefferson county, and was filed in this court May 31, 1910, to review a judgment of that court dated January IT, 1910. May 22, 1911, counsel for defendants in error filed their motion to dismiss the proceeding because plaintiff has failed to have summons in error issued and served upon defendants in error or either of them within one year from the date of the judgment from which the appeal is sought to be prosecuted. The records of this court show that pimcipe for summons- was filed on October 27, 1910, and summons issued, but that no return was made upon the same, and defendants in error and their counsel each make oath that no summons in error was ever served upon them, and there is no evidence of any waiver or general appearance having been made. Under these circumstances the motion to dismiss must be sustained. Coleman v. Eaton, 26 Okla. 858, 110 Pac. 672; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bradham, 24 Okla. 250, 103 Pac. 591; McMurtry v. Byrd et al., 23 Okla. 597, 101 Pac. 1117; and Court of Honor v. Wallace, 23 Okla. 734, 102 Pac. 111.

The action is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 232, 116 P. 942, 29 Okla. 119, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartsell-v-edwards-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack