Storm v. Richart (Waggoner, Interveners)

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Storm v. Richart (Waggoner, Interveners)

1915 OK 1084, 153 P. 862, 153 P. 863, 49 Okla. 587, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 91

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 21, 1915

DocketNo. 7282

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1915 OK 1084 (Storm v. Richart (Waggoner, Interveners)) 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

Storm v. Richart (Waggoner, Interveners), 1915 OK 1084, 153 P. 862, 153 P. 863, 49 Okla. 587, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 91 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, J.

Plaintiff’s petition was filed August 16, 1912, and trial had November 15th following. Judgment being rendered in favor of defendant, plaintiff on the same day filed a motion for a new trial (although the motion does not appear in the case-made). The motion for a new trial does not appear to have been acted upon until June 5, 1914, when it was overruled. September 23d following an order of the court was entered, modifying the judgment of June 5th in certain particulars. The petition in error, with case-made attached, was .filed in this court March 26, 1915, or more than six months after the rendition of the order appealed from, and must therefore be dismissed, as this court, under the provisions of chapter 18, Sess. Laws 1910-11, has no jurisdiction to review a final order where more than six months have intervened between the making of such final order and the date of the filing of the petition in error- in this court. Mallow v. Johnson, 40 Okla. 455, 139 Pac. 310; Caswell v. Eaton, 43 Okla. 770, 144 Pac. 591; School District No. 38 v. Mackey, County Treasurer, 44 Okla. 408, 144 Pac. 1032. Without deciding whether the judgment appealed from was that of June 5, or September 23, 1914 (though it would seem the former), it is sufficient to say that in either case the statutory period of six months expired previous to the filing of the petition in error in this court.

The appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

SHARP, J.

Plaintiff’s petition was filed August 16, 1912, and trial had November 15th following. Judgment being rendered in favor of defendant, plaintiff on the same day filed a motion for a new trial (although the motion does not appear in the case-made). The motion for a new trial does not appear to have been acted upon until June 5, 1914, when it was overruled. September 23d following an order of the court was entered, modifying the judgment of June 5th in certain particulars. The petition in error, with case-made attached, was .filed in this court March 26, 1915, or more than six months after the rendition of the order appealed from, and must therefore be dismissed, as this court, under the provisions of chapter 18, Sess. Laws 1910-11, has no jurisdiction to review a final order where more than six months have intervened between the making of such final order and the date of the filing of the petition in error- in this court. Mallow v. Johnson, 40 Okla. 455, 139 Pac. 310; Caswell v. Eaton, 43 Okla. 770, 144 Pac. 591; School District No. 38 v. Mackey, County Treasurer, 44 Okla. 408, 144 Pac. 1032. Without deciding whether the judgment appealed from was that of June 5, or September 23, 1914 (though it would seem the former), it is sufficient to say that in either case the statutory period of six months expired previous to the filing of the petition in error in this court.

The appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 1084, 153 P. 862, 153 P. 863, 49 Okla. 587, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/storm-v-richart-waggoner-interveners-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack