Ralph v. Peters

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Ralph v. Peters

1933 OK 524, 25 P.2d 761, 165 Okla. 301, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 319

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 10, 1933

Docket24884

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1933 OK 524 (Ralph v. Peters) 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

Ralph v. Peters, 1933 OK 524, 25 P.2d 761, 165 Okla. 301, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 319 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced in the district court of Sequoyah *302 county March 11, 1931, and on the 3rd day of January, 1983, a judgment was rendered for the defendant Francis M. Clark, for the possession of the premises involved in the action. A petition in error with case-made attached was filed July 27, 1933, and on August 12, 1933, a motion to dismiss was filed by the defendant Francis M. Clark. This motion alleges that the case-made fails to contain a copy of the final order or judgment sought to be reviewed; that the record filed herein fails to have incorporated an order of the trial court overruling motion for new trial; that the record fails to contain a recital of a notice of intention to appeal. An examination of the record discloses that these allegations are supported by the facts. Either one of these grounds is equally fatal to the appeal. Smith v. Fash, 122 Okla. 104, 251 P. 496; Lillard v. Meisberger, 113 Okla. 228, 240 P. 1067.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was commenced in the district court of Sequoyah *302 county March 11, 1931, and on the 3rd day of January, 1983, a judgment was rendered for the defendant Francis M. Clark, for the possession of the premises involved in the action. A petition in error with case-made attached was filed July 27, 1933, and on August 12, 1933, a motion to dismiss was filed by the defendant Francis M. Clark. This motion alleges that the case-made fails to contain a copy of the final order or judgment sought to be reviewed; that the record filed herein fails to have incorporated an order of the trial court overruling motion for new trial; that the record fails to contain a recital of a notice of intention to appeal. An examination of the record discloses that these allegations are supported by the facts. Either one of these grounds is equally fatal to the appeal. Smith v. Fash, 122 Okla. 104, 251 P. 496; Lillard v. Meisberger, 113 Okla. 228, 240 P. 1067.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 524, 25 P.2d 761, 165 Okla. 301, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ralph-v-peters-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack