Murray v. Homer

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Murray v. Homer

90 Okla. 37

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 29, 1923

DocketNo. 12430

StatusPublished

This text of 90 Okla. 37 (Murray v. Homer) 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

Murray v. Homer, 90 Okla. 37 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

KENNAMER, J.

Peter Homer, the defendant in error, filed his motion on April 21, 1923, in this ease to dismiss the appeal.

„ It appears from the record that the petition in error was filed in this cause on the. [38]*385th day of July, 1921, with casenmade attached, but that said case-made iwlas never filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Atoka county, where said cause was originally tried and judgment rendered, and that more than six months halve expired since the rendition of said judgment

In the case of Banks et al. v. Watson et al., 40 Okla. 450, 139 Pac. 306, this .court held:

“A case-made filed in this court which does not show that it has been filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court is a nullity, and where such a case-made remains in this court after the expiration of the statutory time in which to perfect an appeal, on motion the appeal will be dismissed.”

It is, therefore, clear that the appeal in this case must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

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

KENNAMER, J.

Peter Homer, the defendant in error, filed his motion on April 21, 1923, in this ease to dismiss the appeal.

„ It appears from the record that the petition in error was filed in this cause on the. [38]*385th day of July, 1921, with casenmade attached, but that said case-made iwlas never filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Atoka county, where said cause was originally tried and judgment rendered, and that more than six months halve expired since the rendition of said judgment

In the case of Banks et al. v. Watson et al., 40 Okla. 450, 139 Pac. 306, this .court held:

“A case-made filed in this court which does not show that it has been filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court is a nullity, and where such a case-made remains in this court after the expiration of the statutory time in which to perfect an appeal, on motion the appeal will be dismissed.”

It is, therefore, clear that the appeal in this case must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Okla. 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-homer-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack