Honley v. First Nat. Bank of Holdenville

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Honley v. First Nat. Bank of Holdenville

1913 OK 177, 130 P. 945, 35 Okla. 649, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 137

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 11, 1913

Docket4726

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1913 OK 177 (Honley v. First Nat. Bank of Holdenville) 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

Honley v. First Nat. Bank of Holdenville, 1913 OK 177, 130 P. 945, 35 Okla. 649, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 137 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

*650 DUNN, J.

This case presents 'error from the district court of Seminole county, and is brought for the purpose of having reviewed errors alleged to have occurred on the trial of the cause. The motion for a new trial was denied on June 24, 1912, and the petition in error was not filed in this court until January 13, 1913, or a period of more than six months from the rendition of the judgment or order of which complaint is made. Chapter 18, Sess. Laws 1911, p. 35, provides that “all proceedings for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments, or final orders shall be commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of.” Under the foregoing statute the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the defendant in error must be sustained, as the statutory period within which an appeal is allowable had expired when it was filed. See Healy v. Davis, 32 Okla. 296, 122 Pac. 157; Rolater v. Strain, 31 Okla. 58, 119 Pac. 992; Fairbanks-Morse & Co. v. Thurmond et al., 31 Okla. 612, 122 Pac. 167; Lewis v. Kidd, 33 Okla. 628, 127 Pac. 257; Brooks et al. v. United Mine Workers of America et al. (not yet officially reported), 128 Pac. 236.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

HAYES, C. J., and ICANE and TURNER, JJ-, concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.

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

*650 DUNN, J.

This case presents 'error from the district court of Seminole county, and is brought for the purpose of having reviewed errors alleged to have occurred on the trial of the cause. The motion for a new trial was denied on June 24, 1912, and the petition in error was not filed in this court until January 13, 1913, or a period of more than six months from the rendition of the judgment or order of which complaint is made. Chapter 18, Sess. Laws 1911, p. 35, provides that “all proceedings for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments, or final orders shall be commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of.” Under the foregoing statute the motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the defendant in error must be sustained, as the statutory period within which an appeal is allowable had expired when it was filed. See Healy v. Davis, 32 Okla. 296, 122 Pac. 157; Rolater v. Strain, 31 Okla. 58, 119 Pac. 992; Fairbanks-Morse & Co. v. Thurmond et al., 31 Okla. 612, 122 Pac. 167; Lewis v. Kidd, 33 Okla. 628, 127 Pac. 257; Brooks et al. v. United Mine Workers of America et al. (not yet officially reported), 128 Pac. 236.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

HAYES, C. J., and ICANE and TURNER, JJ-, concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 177, 130 P. 945, 35 Okla. 649, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honley-v-first-nat-bank-of-holdenville-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack