Pace v. Continental Supply Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Pace v. Continental Supply Co.

1925 OK 37, 227 P. 396, 107 Okla. 223, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 88

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 10, 1925

Docket15934

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1925 OK 37 (Pace v. Continental Supply Co.) 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

Pace v. Continental Supply Co., 1925 OK 37, 227 P. 396, 107 Okla. 223, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 88 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action on account was tried to a jury in the district court and verdict returned in favor of defendant in error. plaintiff below, and against defendant, George; D. Pace, plaintiff in error here. An order overruling motion for new trial in the case was made May 1, 1924, and entered May 12, 1924. This appeal from the order overruling motion for new trial was filed in this court November 10, 1924, within six months from the entry of the order appealed from, but more than six months after the date the order was made.

Defendant in error has filed motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground the petition in error on appeal was not filed within the required time to igiv.e this court jurisdiction in the case. It seems that the motion must be sustained. In Powell v. Johnson-Larimer Dry Goods Co., 35 Okla. 644, 130 Pac 945, it is said in the second syllabus:

“The time within which to perfect an appeal under said statute dates from the rendition of the judgment or order appealed from, and not from the entry thereof.’’

The statute referred to in the authority quoted from is now section 798, Comp. Stat. 1921. Appeal dismissed upon authority of the Powell Case, supra.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action on account was tried to a jury in the district court and verdict returned in favor of defendant in error. plaintiff below, and against defendant, George; D. Pace, plaintiff in error here. An order overruling motion for new trial in the case was made May 1, 1924, and entered May 12, 1924. This appeal from the order overruling motion for new trial was filed in this court November 10, 1924, within six months from the entry of the order appealed from, but more than six months after the date the order was made.

Defendant in error has filed motion to dismiss the appeal upon the ground the petition in error on appeal was not filed within the required time to igiv.e this court jurisdiction in the case. It seems that the motion must be sustained. In Powell v. Johnson-Larimer Dry Goods Co., 35 Okla. 644, 130 Pac 945, it is said in the second syllabus:

“The time within which to perfect an appeal under said statute dates from the rendition of the judgment or order appealed from, and not from the entry thereof.’’

The statute referred to in the authority quoted from is now section 798, Comp. Stat. 1921. Appeal dismissed upon authority of the Powell Case, supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 37, 227 P. 396, 107 Okla. 223, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pace-v-continental-supply-co-okla-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack