Timberlake v. Case

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Timberlake v. Case

1927 OK 88, 254 P. 716, 122 Okla. 275, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 188

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 29, 1927

Docket17635

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1927 OK 88 (Timberlake v. Case) 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

Timberlake v. Case, 1927 OK 88, 254 P. 716, 122 Okla. 275, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 188 (Okla. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment was rendered in the trial court on the 19th day of January, 1926, and thereafter, on the 22nd day of January, 1926. an application for new trial on written grounds was filed in said cause. The appeal was lodged in this court July 19, 1926. The defendants in error have filed their motion to dismiss for the reason that the motion for new trial has not b’een acted upon by the trial court. An examination of the record in this case does not show that the motion for new trial has ever been passed upon by the trial court, and there is nothing properly before this court for review.

In the case of McCommas et al. v. Security National Bank,. No. 17463, 122. Okla. 52, 250 Pac. 802, this court laid down, the rule that:

“Proceedings in error brought, in this court before the application for nevy. trial on written grounds is 'passed upon by the trial court are'prematurely brought and should’be dis'missed.” '

, Following the rule laid down above,, this cause is hereby dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment was rendered in the trial court on the 19th day of January, 1926, and thereafter, on the 22nd day of January, 1926. an application for new trial on written grounds was filed in said cause. The appeal was lodged in this court July 19, 1926. The defendants in error have filed their motion to dismiss for the reason that the motion for new trial has not b’een acted upon by the trial court. An examination of the record in this case does not show that the motion for new trial has ever been passed upon by the trial court, and there is nothing properly before this court for review.

In the case of McCommas et al. v. Security National Bank,. No. 17463, 122. Okla. 52, 250 Pac. 802, this court laid down, the rule that:

“Proceedings in error brought, in this court before the application for nevy. trial on written grounds is 'passed upon by the trial court are'prematurely brought and should’be dis'missed.” '

, Following the rule laid down above,, this cause is hereby dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1927 OK 88, 254 P. 716, 122 Okla. 275, 1927 Okla. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timberlake-v-case-okla-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack