Koury v. Vogel

1942 OK 352, 130 P.2d 93, 191 Okla. 374, 1942 Okla. LEXIS 221
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided October 20, 1942·No. No. 30730.·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

At the conclusion of the opening statement of counsel for the defendant plaintiff moved for, and the court granted, a judgment upon the pleadings and opening statement of counsel. The order and judgment from which the appeal is taken was entered under date of June 3, 1941. Thereafter plaintiff in error filed a motion for new trial, which was determined by the trial court on June 16, 1941. Apparently it is the attempt of the plaintiff in error to appeal from the order overruling the motion for new trial. If it is his intention to appeal from the judgment, the cause was not filed within six months from the date of the order entered thereon by the trial court. The appeal must be dismissed. Burdett v. Burdett, 26 Okla. 416, 109 P. 922; Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co., 48 Okla. 156, 149 P. 1136; Dickson v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., 174 Okla. 335, 50 P. 2d 335. In Dickson v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., supra, it is stated:

“Where judgment is rendered upon the pleadings and opening statement of counsel, the filing and determination of a motion for new trial serves no purpose to extend the time In which the *375 appeal may be filed past the six months from the rendition of the judgment upon said pleadings and opening statement.”

The appeal is dismissed.

WELCH, C. J., and OSBORN, BAY-LESS, GIBSON, HURST, and DAVISON, JJ., concur. CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.

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

Koury v. Vogel, 1942 OK 352, 130 P.2d 93, 191 Okla. 374, 1942 Okla. LEXIS 221 (Okla. 1942).

1942 OK 352 (Koury v. Vogel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sudik v. Spaeth
1954 OK 291 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1954)
Keas v. Keas
1950 OK 192 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1950)