Starr v. Woods

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Starr v. Woods

1933 OK 50, 19 P.2d 561, 162 Okla. 242, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 567

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 31, 1933

Docket23596

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 1933 OK 50 (Starr v. Woods) 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

Starr v. Woods, 1933 OK 50, 19 P.2d 561, 162 Okla. 242, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 567 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER OURIAM.

On the 3rd day of May, 1982, plaintiff in error filed petition in error and tíase-made in this court. On the 23rd day of May, motion to dismiss the appeal was filed, alleging the jurisdictional defeat of failure to file within six months from the order overruling the motion for new trial. The judgment in the matter was rendered on August 17, 1981, as appears from the record at page® 120 to' 127, and the order overruling! motion for new trial appearing in the case-made at pages 129 (o 131, was made in the April. 1931, term *243 of that ¡court, as appears from the Session Laws of 1927, chapter 40, page 61 [O. S. 1931, sec. 3832].

It is apparent that the plaintiff: in error had six months from September 21, 1931, which would have been March 21, 1932, in which to file petition in error and case-made in this court,, unless at that date something of a nature which must be shown affirmatively by the proceedings extended the time in which to perfect the appeal. '

The plaintiff in error has not responded to this motion to dismiss, and the only excuse shown for failure to lodge the appeal in this eoui‘t within six months from the date heretofore given appears in thei application for additional time to prepare and serve case-made filed in this court May 3. 1932i, to which a response was filed by defendant in error on the same date.

No authorities are cited in this application at all, and it is the opinion of the writer that it offers no excuse under the law and that the error alleged therein or mistake was the mistake of the attorney in not being diligent in keeping up the orders, and does not come within the purview of accident or mistake permitting the amendment or additional time in which to prepare and serve a ease-made.

Defendant in error urges that the purported order of (December 7th was made after term, without notice or form under the statute, and is therefore void and may he considered as if not made. Under the rule in Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okla. 277, 190 P. 681, and many authorities of this court, the contention of the defendant in error is correct.

This court has further held in the case of Philbrock v. Home Drilling Co., 117 Okla. 266, 246 P. 457, that:

“The trial court cannot extend the time for appeal by vacating the order or decree and re-entering it as of -a more i-eeont date."

The authorities cited by defendant in error amply support his contention that the appeal was not lodged in this court within six months from the date of the order overruling the motion for new trial, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

PER OURIAM.

On the 3rd day of May, 1982, plaintiff in error filed petition in error and tíase-made in this court. On the 23rd day of May, motion to dismiss the appeal was filed, alleging the jurisdictional defeat of failure to file within six months from the order overruling the motion for new trial. The judgment in the matter was rendered on August 17, 1981, as appears from the record at page® 120 to' 127, and the order overruling! motion for new trial appearing in the case-made at pages 129 (o 131, was made in the April. 1931, term *243 of that ¡court, as appears from the Session Laws of 1927, chapter 40, page 61 [O. S. 1931, sec. 3832].

It is apparent that the plaintiff: in error had six months from September 21, 1931, which would have been March 21, 1932, in which to file petition in error and case-made in this court,, unless at that date something of a nature which must be shown affirmatively by the proceedings extended the time in which to perfect the appeal. '

The plaintiff in error has not responded to this motion to dismiss, and the only excuse shown for failure to lodge the appeal in this eoui‘t within six months from the date heretofore given appears in thei application for additional time to prepare and serve case-made filed in this court May 3. 1932i, to which a response was filed by defendant in error on the same date.

No authorities are cited in this application at all, and it is the opinion of the writer that it offers no excuse under the law and that the error alleged therein or mistake was the mistake of the attorney in not being diligent in keeping up the orders, and does not come within the purview of accident or mistake permitting the amendment or additional time in which to prepare and serve a ease-made.

Defendant in error urges that the purported order of (December 7th was made after term, without notice or form under the statute, and is therefore void and may he considered as if not made. Under the rule in Pettis v. Johnston, 78 Okla. 277, 190 P. 681, and many authorities of this court, the contention of the defendant in error is correct.

This court has further held in the case of Philbrock v. Home Drilling Co., 117 Okla. 266, 246 P. 457, that:

“The trial court cannot extend the time for appeal by vacating the order or decree and re-entering it as of -a more i-eeont date."

The authorities cited by defendant in error amply support his contention that the appeal was not lodged in this court within six months from the date of the order overruling the motion for new trial, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 50, 19 P.2d 561, 162 Okla. 242, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starr-v-woods-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack