Thomason v. Champlin

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Thomason v. Champlin

1914 OK 271, 141 P. 411, 43 Okla. 86, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 459

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 9, 1914

Docket3866

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1914 OK 271 (Thomason v. Champlin) 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

Thomason v. Champlin, 1914 OK 271, 141 P. 411, 43 Okla. 86, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 459 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

RIDDLE, J.

Plaintiffs in error, Maud Thomason and Lee Thomason, prosecute this proceeding in this court from an order granting defendant in error a new trial. The record shows that the motion for new trial was overruled in the district court of Okfuskee county on the 21st day of October, 1911.. The case-made was filed in this court on the 23d day of April, 1912, two days beyond the six months allowed by statute for perfecting an appeal. Defendant in error has filed his motion to dismiss the *87 appeal on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine said matter upon its merits, for the reason that said petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court with-. in six months from the date of the order appealed from. It is undoubtedly the law in this jurisdiction that, unless the case-made and petition in error are filed in this court within the time allowed by chapter 18, p. 35, Sess. Laws 1910-11, no jurisdiction is conferred upon this court to hear and determine said matter on its merits.

We are therefore of the opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal is well taken, and that the same should be, and is, sustained.

All the Justices concur.

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

RIDDLE, J.

Plaintiffs in error, Maud Thomason and Lee Thomason, prosecute this proceeding in this court from an order granting defendant in error a new trial. The record shows that the motion for new trial was overruled in the district court of Okfuskee county on the 21st day of October, 1911.. The case-made was filed in this court on the 23d day of April, 1912, two days beyond the six months allowed by statute for perfecting an appeal. Defendant in error has filed his motion to dismiss the *87 appeal on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine said matter upon its merits, for the reason that said petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court with-. in six months from the date of the order appealed from. It is undoubtedly the law in this jurisdiction that, unless the case-made and petition in error are filed in this court within the time allowed by chapter 18, p. 35, Sess. Laws 1910-11, no jurisdiction is conferred upon this court to hear and determine said matter on its merits.

We are therefore of the opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal is well taken, and that the same should be, and is, sustained.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 271, 141 P. 411, 43 Okla. 86, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomason-v-champlin-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack