Stumpf v. Pederson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Stumpf v. Pederson

1935 OK 24, 40 P.2d 15, 171 Okla. 145, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 117

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 14, 1935

DocketNo. 25595.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1935 OK 24 (Stumpf v. Pederson) 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

Stumpf v. Pederson, 1935 OK 24, 40 P.2d 15, 171 Okla. 145, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 117 (Okla. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was originally instituted December 13, 1933, before Joe E. Deupree, a justice of the peace for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma county, Okla. An attachment was had on certain personal property, and after an appeal to the court of common pleas, the defendants below filed their motion to discharge the attachment, and on the 10th day of February, 1934, the court dissolved the order of attachment issued. The justice of the peace court held that the justice of peace court did not have jurisdiction of the person of defendants, and dismissed the cause, and upon the same theory discharged the attachment. A motion for new trial was afterwards filed and the appeal taken from the order of the court dismissing the cause, but the petition in error with case-made attached was not filed herein until May 23, 1934, more than 30 days after the court had dissolved the order of attachment.

This court has repeatedly held that in order to appeal from an order dissolving an attachment, it is necessary to file the petition in error, together with the ease-made, in this court within 30 days from the date of the order dissolving the attachment. Otherwise, the' court is absolutely without jurisdiction to hear the error complained of in dissolving or discharging the writ of attachment. Jones v. Nelson, 139 Okla. 198, 281 P. 792. In that case the court dismissed the appeal in so far as it affected the order vacating or discharging the writ of attachment, and afterwards heard the case upon the main appeal. Jones v. Nelson, 156 Okla. 236, 10 P. (2d) 408.

To the effect on the general rule of the construction under section 555, O. S. 1931, see Kennedy Mercantile Co. v. Dobson, 40 Okla. 306, 138 P. 147; Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank v. Cox, 40 Okla. 307, 138 P. 148; First National Bank v. Chowning, 95 Okla. 137, 218 P. 676; Mitchner v. City Commissioners, 100 Okla. 98, 228 P. 159.

The appeal as to the order discharging the attachment is dismissed and denied as to the motion to dismiss the appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was originally instituted December 13, 1933, before Joe E. Deupree, a justice of the peace for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma county, Okla. An attachment was had on certain personal property, and after an appeal to the court of common pleas, the defendants below filed their motion to discharge the attachment, and on the 10th day of February, 1934, the court dissolved the order of attachment issued. The justice of the peace court held that the justice of peace court did not have jurisdiction of the person of defendants, and dismissed the cause, and upon the same theory discharged the attachment. A motion for new trial was afterwards filed and the appeal taken from the order of the court dismissing the cause, but the petition in error with case-made attached was not filed herein until May 23, 1934, more than 30 days after the court had dissolved the order of attachment.

This court has repeatedly held that in order to appeal from an order dissolving an attachment, it is necessary to file the petition in error, together with the ease-made, in this court within 30 days from the date of the order dissolving the attachment. Otherwise, the' court is absolutely without jurisdiction to hear the error complained of in dissolving or discharging the writ of attachment. Jones v. Nelson, 139 Okla. 198, 281 P. 792. In that case the court dismissed the appeal in so far as it affected the order vacating or discharging the writ of attachment, and afterwards heard the case upon the main appeal. Jones v. Nelson, 156 Okla. 236, 10 P. (2d) 408.

To the effect on the general rule of the construction under section 555, O. S. 1931, see Kennedy Mercantile Co. v. Dobson, 40 Okla. 306, 138 P. 147; Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank v. Cox, 40 Okla. 307, 138 P. 148; First National Bank v. Chowning, 95 Okla. 137, 218 P. 676; Mitchner v. City Commissioners, 100 Okla. 98, 228 P. 159.

The appeal as to the order discharging the attachment is dismissed and denied as to the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1935 OK 24, 40 P.2d 15, 171 Okla. 145, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stumpf-v-pederson-okla-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack