Rackliffe-Gibson Const. Co. v. Clingenpeel

1914 OK 312, 141 P. 964, 43 Okla. 181, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 484
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 30, 1914
Docket6318
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 1914 OK 312 (Rackliffe-Gibson Const. Co. v. Clingenpeel) 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
Rackliffe-Gibson Const. Co. v. Clingenpeel, 1914 OK 312, 141 P. 964, 43 Okla. 181, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 484 (Okla. 1914).

Opinion

LOOFBOURROW, J.

Defendants in error have filed motion to dismiss the appeal in this case for the reason that the same was not commenced within six months from the date of the rendition of the final judgment. An examination of the record discloses the fact that motion for new trial was overruled on November 14, 1913, and the petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on April 22, 1914. But no summons in error has been issued, nor have defendants in error waived such service, and no praecipe for such summons has been filed or general appearance made within such time, and, the six months having expired May 14, 1914, the appeal is dismissed. See C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Bradham, 24 Okla. 250, 103 Pac. 591; Watson v. Rein et al., 26 Okla. 47, 108 Pac. 397.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Weaver v. Watts
1916 OK 148 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1914 OK 312, 141 P. 964, 43 Okla. 181, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rackliffe-gibson-const-co-v-clingenpeel-okla-1914.