Whitaker v. Chestnut

1917 OK 203, 165 P. 160, 65 Okla. 122, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 28
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMay 8, 1917
Docket7640
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1917 OK 203 (Whitaker v. Chestnut) 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
Whitaker v. Chestnut, 1917 OK 203, 165 P. 160, 65 Okla. 122, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 28 (Okla. 1917).

Opinion

Opinion by

STEWART, C.

The plaintiff, W. J. Whitaker, obtained a judgment against the defendant, H. M. Chestnut, in the district court of Mayes county by default. Afterwards, by special appearance, the defendant moved the court to vacate and set aside the judgment, which motion was by the court sustained. The- plaintiff attempts to appeal to this court by petition in error and transcript.

In Orr v. Fulton, 52 Okla. 621, 153 Pac. 149, it is said:

*123 “Á motion to vacate a judgment copied into a transcript constitutes no part of the record, and presents no question for review by the Supreme Court on appeal.”

In Menten v. Shuttee, 11 Okla. 381, 67 Pac. 478, the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma says:

“Motions presented to the trial court, the rulings thereon, and exceptions, are not properly part of the record, and can only be preserved and presented for review on appeal by incorporating the same into a bill of exceptions or case-made.”

Such is the uniform holding of this court, as shown by the following authorities: Tribal Developing Company v. White Bros., 28 Okla. 525, 114 Pac. 736; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 372, 112 Pac. 1040; Veverka v. Frank et al., 41 Okla. 142, 137 Pac. 682; Grady County v. Schrock et al., 53 Okla. 144, 155 Pac. 882.

We have no discretion.

Following the authorities cited, the appeal is dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Related

Collier v. Collier
1942 OK 209 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1942)
Dime Savings & Trust Co. v. Able
1939 OK 333 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Campbell v. Aetna Bldg. & Loan Ass'n
1938 OK 354 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Jones v. Welborn
1937 OK 496 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Savery v. Cochran
1935 OK 1088 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Dixon v. Walters
1932 OK 767 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
First Nat. Bank of McAlester v. McIntosh
1925 OK 276 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Alexander v. Jacobs
1924 OK 316 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
McHenry v. Spears
1921 OK 394 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Holbert v. Patrick
1918 OK 685 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)
Williams v. Kelly
1918 OK 635 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1917 OK 203, 165 P. 160, 65 Okla. 122, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitaker-v-chestnut-okla-1917.