Rourke v. Burge

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Rourke v. Burge

1944 OK 102, 147 P.2d 993, 194 Okla. 468, 1944 Okla. LEXIS 501

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 21, 1944

DocketNo. 31106.

StatusPublished

This text of 1944 OK 102 (Rourke v. Burge) 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

Rourke v. Burge, 1944 OK 102, 147 P.2d 993, 194 Okla. 468, 1944 Okla. LEXIS 501 (Okla. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On January 2, 1942, a default judgment was rendered against S. A. Rourke and others interested with him in this litigation. On February 7, 1942, a petition to vacate that judgment was filed. That petition was denied on February 21, 1942. On the same day another judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. A motion for new trial, filed on February 25, 1942, by the attorneys for Rourke and those he now is interested with, was overruled on February 26, 1942. On February 25, 1942, Rourke filed a second motion for new trial, and on February 26, 1942, he filed a supplemental motion for new trial. On March 5, 1942, he-filed a motion to vacate the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence. And on the same day he filed a motion to vacate an order requiring him to make a supersedeas bond. On March 6, 1942, the four last mentioned motions were overruled. On September 8, 1942, Rourke, for himself *469 and those interested with him in this litigation, filed in this court a petition in error with case-made attached seeking to vacate the orders of February 26, 1942, and March 6, 1942.- The plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was lodged in this court more than six months from the rendition of the orders complained of. This motion must be sustained. See 12 O. S. 1941 § 972; Miller v. Mentzer, 186 Okla. 496, 98 P. 2d 913; Finch v. Smith, 166 Okla. 68, 26 P. 2d 750.

Appeal dismissed.

CORN, C.J., GIBSON, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, and HURST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

On January 2, 1942, a default judgment was rendered against S. A. Rourke and others interested with him in this litigation. On February 7, 1942, a petition to vacate that judgment was filed. That petition was denied on February 21, 1942. On the same day another judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. A motion for new trial, filed on February 25, 1942, by the attorneys for Rourke and those he now is interested with, was overruled on February 26, 1942. On February 25, 1942, Rourke filed a second motion for new trial, and on February 26, 1942, he filed a supplemental motion for new trial. On March 5, 1942, he-filed a motion to vacate the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence. And on the same day he filed a motion to vacate an order requiring him to make a supersedeas bond. On March 6, 1942, the four last mentioned motions were overruled. On September 8, 1942, Rourke, for himself *469 and those interested with him in this litigation, filed in this court a petition in error with case-made attached seeking to vacate the orders of February 26, 1942, and March 6, 1942.- The plaintiffs have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal was lodged in this court more than six months from the rendition of the orders complained of. This motion must be sustained. See 12 O. S. 1941 § 972; Miller v. Mentzer, 186 Okla. 496, 98 P. 2d 913; Finch v. Smith, 166 Okla. 68, 26 P. 2d 750.

Appeal dismissed.

CORN, C.J., GIBSON, V.C.J., and RILEY, OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, and HURST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1944 OK 102, 147 P.2d 993, 194 Okla. 468, 1944 Okla. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rourke-v-burge-okla-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack