Malloy v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Malloy v. Johnson

1914 OK 110, 139 P. 310, 40 Okla. 454, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 54

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 3, 1914

Docket5990

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 1914 OK 110 (Malloy v. Johnson) 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

Malloy v. Johnson, 1914 OK 110, 139 P. 310, 40 Okla. 454, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 54 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

LOOFBOURROW, J.

In this case motion for new trial was overruled by the court below on May 31, 1913; the petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on January 13, 1914, so that more than six months had expired between the date of the final order sought to be reviewed and the filing of the petition in error. It has been repeatedly held that after the expiration of the time allowed -by law for perfecting the appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the same. See Tishomingo Elec. Co. v. Harris, 28 Okla. 10, 113 Pac. 713; Fairbanks-Morse & Co. v. Thurmond et al., 31 Okla. 612, 122 Pac. 167; Healy v. Davis, 32 Okla. 296, 122 Pac. 157; State Savings Bank, etc., v. Bedden et al., 38 Okla. 444, 134 Pac. 20.

*455 The plaintiff in error contends that section 5255, Rev. Laws 1910, which provides that appeals must be brought within one year, controls in this case. It is true that the Revised Laws took effect on the 16th day of May, 1913, as contended by plaintiff in error, but section 2 of the adopting act expressly provides that the adoption of the Revised Laws of 1910 shall not be construed to repeal any act of the Legislature enacted subsequent to the adjournment of the extraordinary session of the Legislature which convened in January, 1910. Sess. Laws 1910-11, c. 18, places the six months’ limitation, by which we must be governed.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

LOOFBOURROW, J.

In this case motion for new trial was overruled by the court below on May 31, 1913; the petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on January 13, 1914, so that more than six months had expired between the date of the final order sought to be reviewed and the filing of the petition in error. It has been repeatedly held that after the expiration of the time allowed -by law for perfecting the appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the same. See Tishomingo Elec. Co. v. Harris, 28 Okla. 10, 113 Pac. 713; Fairbanks-Morse & Co. v. Thurmond et al., 31 Okla. 612, 122 Pac. 167; Healy v. Davis, 32 Okla. 296, 122 Pac. 157; State Savings Bank, etc., v. Bedden et al., 38 Okla. 444, 134 Pac. 20.

*455 The plaintiff in error contends that section 5255, Rev. Laws 1910, which provides that appeals must be brought within one year, controls in this case. It is true that the Revised Laws took effect on the 16th day of May, 1913, as contended by plaintiff in error, but section 2 of the adopting act expressly provides that the adoption of the Revised Laws of 1910 shall not be construed to repeal any act of the Legislature enacted subsequent to the adjournment of the extraordinary session of the Legislature which convened in January, 1910. Sess. Laws 1910-11, c. 18, places the six months’ limitation, by which we must be governed.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 110, 139 P. 310, 40 Okla. 454, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malloy-v-johnson-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack