Rounds & Porter Lumber Co. v. Sherry

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Rounds & Porter Lumber Co. v. Sherry

1933 OK 105, 19 P.2d 177, 162 Okla. 76, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 508

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 14, 1933

Docket22465

StatusPublished

This text of 1933 OK 105 (Rounds & Porter Lumber Co. v. Sherry) 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

Rounds & Porter Lumber Co. v. Sherry, 1933 OK 105, 19 P.2d 177, 162 Okla. 76, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 508 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On the 15th day of June, 1931, appellant filed petition in error with case-made attached, appealing from a judgment entered in favor of defendant in district court of Tulsa county, Okla., under date of December 18, 1930. Motion to dismiss this appeal was filed June 25, 1931, and response thereto July 20, 1931; a reply to the response was filed on the same date. The motion to dismiss urges, first, that no notice of appeal was given; and second, that the case-made was not served and settled within any extension of time under the law.

Movant cited the case of Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co., 48 Okla. 156, 149 P. 1136, the syllabus of which is as follows:

“It is not necessary to file a motion for new trial before bringing to this court for review a ruling of the court sustaining an objection to the introduction of any evidence and judgment dismissing the case.”

See, to the same effect, the case of Clapper v. Putnam Co., 70 Okla. 99, 158 P. 297. It is the order of the court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On the 15th day of June, 1931, appellant filed petition in error with case-made attached, appealing from a judgment entered in favor of defendant in district court of Tulsa county, Okla., under date of December 18, 1930. Motion to dismiss this appeal was filed June 25, 1931, and response thereto July 20, 1931; a reply to the response was filed on the same date. The motion to dismiss urges, first, that no notice of appeal was given; and second, that the case-made was not served and settled within any extension of time under the law.

Movant cited the case of Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co., 48 Okla. 156, 149 P. 1136, the syllabus of which is as follows:

“It is not necessary to file a motion for new trial before bringing to this court for review a ruling of the court sustaining an objection to the introduction of any evidence and judgment dismissing the case.”

See, to the same effect, the case of Clapper v. Putnam Co., 70 Okla. 99, 158 P. 297. It is the order of the court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 105, 19 P.2d 177, 162 Okla. 76, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rounds-porter-lumber-co-v-sherry-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack