Hoffman v. Board of Comrs. Pawnee Co.

1899 OK 21, 57 P. 167, 8 Okla. 225, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 51
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 11, 1899
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 1899 OK 21 (Hoffman v. Board of Comrs. Pawnee 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
Hoffman v. Board of Comrs. Pawnee Co., 1899 OK 21, 57 P. 167, 8 Okla. 225, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 51 (Okla. 1899).

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

Hainer, J.:

This cause comes here on appeal from the probate court of Pawnee county. It appears from the record in this case that the cause was tried by the court *226 without a jury, aud that the court rendered a judgment in said cause on the 31st day of August, 1897. It further appears from the record that on the 31st day of August a motion for a new trial was filed by the plaintiff, which motion, on the same day, was considered and overruled by the court, to which ruling of the court the plaintiff duly excepted at the time, and brings the case here on a case-made for review. It further appears that the case was settled and signed by the probate judge on the 5th day of July, 1898. It further appears that the case was not filed in this court until the 30th day of September, 1898.

Section 574 of the Civil Code provides: “No proceeding for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced unless within one year after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of, or in case the person entitled to such proceeding be an infant, a person of unsound mind, or imprisoned within one year as aforesaid, exclusive of the time of such disability.” Thus the record in this case clearly shows that more than one year has intervened between the rendition of the judgment and the overruling of the motion for a new trial in the probate court and the filing of the petition in error and the case-made in this court; hence this court is without jurisdiction to review such judgment. The petition in error must therefore be dismissed.

All of the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Howard v. Arkansaw
1916 OK 703 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Tishomingo Electric Light & Power Co. v. Harris
1911 OK 58 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Bellamy v. Washita Valley Telephone Co.
1910 OK 58 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Kilgore v. Yarnell
1909 OK 179 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
Tennison v. Engle
1909 OK 131 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
School Dist. No. 39, Kiowa Cty. v. Fisher
1909 OK 10 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1899 OK 21, 57 P. 167, 8 Okla. 225, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-board-of-comrs-pawnee-co-okla-1899.