Manes v. Hoss

1911 OK 100, 114 P. 698, 28 Okla. 489, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 134
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 21, 1911
Docket2195
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 1911 OK 100 (Manes v. Hoss) 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
Manes v. Hoss, 1911 OK 100, 114 P. 698, 28 Okla. 489, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 134 (Okla. 1911).

Opinion

HAYES, J.

Judgment was rendered in the court below on December 18, 1909. Petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on the 17th day of December, 1910. There was no waiver of summons, and no prtecipe therefor wa$ filed and issuance of summons had until the 21st day of December, 1910. The judgment in the court below was upon the pleadings. Not only must a petition in error and case-made or transcript be filed in this court within one year from the rendition of the judgment appealed from (section 6082, Snyder’s Comp. Laws of Okla. 1909), but there must be filed within said time a praecipe for summons *490 and summons issued, unless tbe same be waived. McMurtry v. Byrd et al., 23 Okla. 597, 101 Pac. 1117; C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Bradham, 24 Okla. 205, 103 Pac. 591.

A motion for a new trial is unnecessary to enable this court to review the action of a trial court in rendering a judgment upon the pleadings (Burdett et al. v. Burdett et al., 26 Okla. 416, 109 Pac. 922), and where a motion for a new trial is unnecessary to present for review to this court the matters complained of in the petition in error, the filing of such motion and decision thereon by the court is ineffectual for the purpose of extending the time within which to perfect an appeal; and the time begins to run from the rendition of the judgment appealed from, and not from the order overruling the motion for a new trial. Springfield Fire & M. Ins. Co. v. Gish, Brook & Co., 23 Okla. 824, 102 Pac. 708.

The motion to dismiss is sustained.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Opinion No. 69-343 (1996) Ag
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1969
Lawter v. Edwards
1953 OK 202 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1953)
Render v. Schafer, Inc.
1946 OK 366 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1946)
Rorem v. Bodine
1936 OK 735 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1936)
Goldberg v. Goldberg
1930 OK 366 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Kline v. Murray
257 P. 465 (Montana Supreme Court, 1927)
Chestnut v. Overholser
1919 OK 233 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
Kansas Nat. Bank of Wichita v. Goodner-Horne Co.
1917 OK 9 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Clapper v. Putnam Co.
1916 OK 588 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Coleman v. Adams
1916 OK 444 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Burton v. De Bolt
1915 OK 494 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Romero v. McIntosh
19 N.M. 612 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1914)
Grier v. Durham
1914 OK 278 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Nelson, Admx.
1913 OK 671 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Cowart v. Parker-Washington Co.
1913 OK 607 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Lewis
1913 OK 568 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Anderson v. McMahon
1912 OK 510 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Gearin v. Portland Ry. Light & Power Co.
124 P. 256 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1912)
Reed v. Woolly
1912 OK 402 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Healy v. Davis
1912 OK 184 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1911 OK 100, 114 P. 698, 28 Okla. 489, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manes-v-hoss-okla-1911.