Tishomingo Electric Light & Power Co. v. Harris

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Tishomingo Electric Light & Power Co. v. Harris

1911 OK 58, 113 P. 713, 28 Okla. 10, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 71

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 10, 1911

Docket1825

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1911 OK 58 (Tishomingo Electric Light & Power Co. v. Harris) 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

Tishomingo Electric Light & Power Co. v. Harris, 1911 OK 58, 113 P. 713, 28 Okla. 10, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 71 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

DUNN, C. J.

This case presents error from the district court of Johnston county. June 11, 1909, a verdict was returned by a jury for plaintiff, on which the court rendered judgment. Within the statutory time defendant filed a motion for new trial, which, on June 14, 1909, was by the court denied. June 29, 1910, petition in error and case-made were lodged in this court, in which review of the judgment and order of the trial court denying the defendant a new trial is sought. A motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the same has not been commenced in this court within one year after the rendition of the judgment or the final order complained of has been filed, which must be sustained.

Section 6082, Comp. Laws of Okla. 1909, provides:

“No proceeding for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced unless within one year after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of, or in case the person entitled to such proceeding be an infant, a person of unsound mind, or imprisoned, within one year as aforesaid, exclusive of the time of such disability.”

This statute has, by this court and by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma, on numerous occasions, been held mandatory. Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. et al. v. Beale, 4 Okla. 712, 47 Pac. 481; Blanchard v. United States, 6 Okla. 587, 52 Pac. 736; Vandervoort v. Board of Com’rs, 8 Okla. 227, 57 Pac. 167; Hoffman v. Board of Com'rs, 8 Okla. 225, 57 Pac. 167; Sumner et al. v. Sherwood, 25 Okla. 70, 105 Pac. 642.

More than one year having elapsed between the rendition of the judgment and order complained of in this action and the filing of the petition in error and case-made in this court, we are with *12 out jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

DUNN, C. J.

This case presents error from the district court of Johnston county. June 11, 1909, a verdict was returned by a jury for plaintiff, on which the court rendered judgment. Within the statutory time defendant filed a motion for new trial, which, on June 14, 1909, was by the court denied. June 29, 1910, petition in error and case-made were lodged in this court, in which review of the judgment and order of the trial court denying the defendant a new trial is sought. A motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the same has not been commenced in this court within one year after the rendition of the judgment or the final order complained of has been filed, which must be sustained.

Section 6082, Comp. Laws of Okla. 1909, provides:

“No proceeding for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced unless within one year after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of, or in case the person entitled to such proceeding be an infant, a person of unsound mind, or imprisoned, within one year as aforesaid, exclusive of the time of such disability.”

This statute has, by this court and by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma, on numerous occasions, been held mandatory. Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. et al. v. Beale, 4 Okla. 712, 47 Pac. 481; Blanchard v. United States, 6 Okla. 587, 52 Pac. 736; Vandervoort v. Board of Com’rs, 8 Okla. 227, 57 Pac. 167; Hoffman v. Board of Com'rs, 8 Okla. 225, 57 Pac. 167; Sumner et al. v. Sherwood, 25 Okla. 70, 105 Pac. 642.

More than one year having elapsed between the rendition of the judgment and order complained of in this action and the filing of the petition in error and case-made in this court, we are with *12 out jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 58, 113 P. 713, 28 Okla. 10, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 71, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tishomingo-electric-light-power-co-v-harris-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack