Provident Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Austin

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Provident Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Austin

1933 OK 27, 18 P.2d 539, 161 Okla. 280, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 451

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 24, 1933

Docket23634

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1933 OK 27 (Provident Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Austin) 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

Provident Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Austin, 1933 OK 27, 18 P.2d 539, 161 Okla. 280, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 451 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause presents an *281 attempted appeal from the district court of Lincoln county. Judgment was rendered on jury verdict in favor of tjhe plaintiff!, Mrs. Emma Austin, and against the Provident I/ife & Accident Insurance Company, October 16, 1931; order overruling motion for new trial was made and entered November 7, 1931. Petition in error with case-made was filed in this coturt on May 11, 1932. The six months’ time for perfecting appeal in this court expired on the 7th day of May, 1932. Defendant in error has filed motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason petition in error was not filed within the time required by law, /and this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment and final order appealed from. No response has been filed by plaintiff in error.

Section 798, O. O. S. 1921 (section 547, Okla. Stat. 1931), requires all proceedings for reversing, vacating, or modifying judgments or final order to be commenced within six months fr;om the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of; except that, in cases where there exist certain enumerated disabilities, such person shall have six months, exclusive of the time of such disability, to commence the proceedings. This court has repeatedly held that where a proceeding in error is not filed in the Supreme Court until after the expiration of six months from the date of judgment or order (appealed from, it will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Converse v. Berry, 131 Okla. 188, 268 P. 235; Verschoyle v. McDaniels, 127 Okla. 166, 260 P. 55; Federal Surety Co. v. Evans, 139 Okla. 231, 281 P. 952; Sanders v. West, 151 Okla. 137, 2 P. (2d) 953; Curtis v. Mason & Hopkins, 155 Okla. 176, 8 P. (2d) 747; Baxter v. Wilbanks, 156 Okla. 51, 9 P. (2d) 426; Whitfield v. Pippin, 150 Okla. 298, 1 P. (2d) 669.

The petition in 'error not having been filed within the time Irequired ¡by law, this court is without jurisdiction of the subject-matter. For want of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.

Note.—See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 167; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 356; R. C. L. Pocket Part, title “Appeal,” § 143.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause presents an *281 attempted appeal from the district court of Lincoln county. Judgment was rendered on jury verdict in favor of tjhe plaintiff!, Mrs. Emma Austin, and against the Provident I/ife & Accident Insurance Company, October 16, 1931; order overruling motion for new trial was made and entered November 7, 1931. Petition in error with case-made was filed in this coturt on May 11, 1932. The six months’ time for perfecting appeal in this court expired on the 7th day of May, 1932. Defendant in error has filed motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason petition in error was not filed within the time required by law, /and this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment and final order appealed from. No response has been filed by plaintiff in error.

Section 798, O. O. S. 1921 (section 547, Okla. Stat. 1931), requires all proceedings for reversing, vacating, or modifying judgments or final order to be commenced within six months fr;om the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of; except that, in cases where there exist certain enumerated disabilities, such person shall have six months, exclusive of the time of such disability, to commence the proceedings. This court has repeatedly held that where a proceeding in error is not filed in the Supreme Court until after the expiration of six months from the date of judgment or order (appealed from, it will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Converse v. Berry, 131 Okla. 188, 268 P. 235; Verschoyle v. McDaniels, 127 Okla. 166, 260 P. 55; Federal Surety Co. v. Evans, 139 Okla. 231, 281 P. 952; Sanders v. West, 151 Okla. 137, 2 P. (2d) 953; Curtis v. Mason & Hopkins, 155 Okla. 176, 8 P. (2d) 747; Baxter v. Wilbanks, 156 Okla. 51, 9 P. (2d) 426; Whitfield v. Pippin, 150 Okla. 298, 1 P. (2d) 669.

The petition in 'error not having been filed within the time Irequired ¡by law, this court is without jurisdiction of the subject-matter. For want of jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.

Note.—See under (1) 2 R. C. L. 167; R. C. L. Perm. Supp. p. 356; R. C. L. Pocket Part, title “Appeal,” § 143.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 27, 18 P.2d 539, 161 Okla. 280, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/provident-life-accident-ins-co-v-austin-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack