W. N. D. B. Taliaferro v. James

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

W. N. D. B. Taliaferro v. James

1912 OK 76, 120 P. 651, 31 Okla. 168, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 24

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 9, 1912

Docket2589

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1912 OK 76 (W. N. D. B. Taliaferro v. James) 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

W. N. D. B. Taliaferro v. James, 1912 OK 76, 120 P. 651, 31 Okla. 168, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 24 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

TURNER, C. J.

It appears from the docket entries in this cause that the ''case-made and petition in error were filed July 30, '1910, and that on the same day a praecipe for summons was-also filed, but not until May 10, 1911, did a summpns in error issue. The motion to dismiss this appeal upon the ground charged and admitted; in contradiction of the record, that the case-made was not filed until May 15, 1911, cannot be considered, for the-reason that parties are not thus permitted to falsify the records-of this court. This motion would therefore be overruled, were it not for the further fact that the docket entries further disclose that, although praecipe for summons in error was filed that same day, the summons was issued May 10, 1911, and has not been’returned.

Wilson’s Stats, of Okla. sec. 4218, provides:

*169 “An action shall be deemed commenced, within the meaning" of this article, as to each defendant, at the date of the summons which is served on him, or on a codefendant, who is a joint contractor or otherwise united in interest with him. Where service by publication is proper, the action shall be deemed commenced at the date of the first publication. An attempt to commence an action shall be deemed equivalent to the commencement thereof, within the meaning of this article, when the party faithfully, prop-erly and diligently endeavors to procure a service; but such attempt must be followed by the first publication of service of the ■summons within sixty days.”

Eor the reason that the record discloses that the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered and entered November 23, 1909, and that said summons was not served -within 60 days from the filing of said praecipe, this proceeding was not commenced within one year after rendition of the judgment complained of, within the contemplation of Wilson’s St. Okla., sec. 4748, and this cause is dismissed.

See School District v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9, 99 Pac. 646; Kilgore v. Yarnell, 34 Okla. 525, 103 Pac. 698.

PIA YES, KANE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur; DUNN, J„ absent, and not participating.

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

TURNER, C. J.

It appears from the docket entries in this cause that the ''case-made and petition in error were filed July 30, '1910, and that on the same day a praecipe for summons was-also filed, but not until May 10, 1911, did a summpns in error issue. The motion to dismiss this appeal upon the ground charged and admitted; in contradiction of the record, that the case-made was not filed until May 15, 1911, cannot be considered, for the-reason that parties are not thus permitted to falsify the records-of this court. This motion would therefore be overruled, were it not for the further fact that the docket entries further disclose that, although praecipe for summons in error was filed that same day, the summons was issued May 10, 1911, and has not been’returned.

Wilson’s Stats, of Okla. sec. 4218, provides:

*169 “An action shall be deemed commenced, within the meaning" of this article, as to each defendant, at the date of the summons which is served on him, or on a codefendant, who is a joint contractor or otherwise united in interest with him. Where service by publication is proper, the action shall be deemed commenced at the date of the first publication. An attempt to commence an action shall be deemed equivalent to the commencement thereof, within the meaning of this article, when the party faithfully, prop-erly and diligently endeavors to procure a service; but such attempt must be followed by the first publication of service of the ■summons within sixty days.”

Eor the reason that the record discloses that the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered and entered November 23, 1909, and that said summons was not served -within 60 days from the filing of said praecipe, this proceeding was not commenced within one year after rendition of the judgment complained of, within the contemplation of Wilson’s St. Okla., sec. 4748, and this cause is dismissed.

See School District v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9, 99 Pac. 646; Kilgore v. Yarnell, 34 Okla. 525, 103 Pac. 698.

PIA YES, KANE, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur; DUNN, J„ absent, and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 76, 120 P. 651, 31 Okla. 168, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/w-n-d-b-taliaferro-v-james-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack