Robinson v. Johnson
This text of 1923 OK 297 (Robinson v. Johnson) 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.
Opinion
Came on to be heard the defendants in error’s motion to dismiss the appeal herein upon several grounds, among which are.: (1) That the case-made was never settled and signed by ■ the trial judge; and (2) the case cannot be consider-; *15 ed on transcript for the want of proper certification hy the clerk.
The record discloses that the motion for a new trial was overruled by* the trial court on August 9, 1922, and 'hence that more than six months has elapsed since said date; that the case-made was not settled and signed by the trial judge and filed in the trial court, as required by section 785 of the Comp. Stats, of 1921, nor served upon the defendants in error as required 'by said section, nor is the same certified as a transcript by the clerk, as required by law.
Therefore, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained, and it is so ordered. Rule 17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Walcher v. Stone, 15 Okla. 130, 79 Pac. 771; E. G. Rall Grain Co. v. First State Bank of McQueen, 39 Okla. 786, 136 Pac. 744; Hughes v. Martin, 43 Okla. 710, 144 Pac. 356.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1923 OK 297, 215 P. 756, 90 Okla. 14, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 1088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-johnson-okla-1923.