Wood v. Dieffenbach

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Wood v. Dieffenbach

1947 OK 55, 177 P.2d 502, 198 Okla. 263, 1947 Okla. LEXIS 426

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 18, 1947

DocketNo. 32274

StatusPublished

This text of 1947 OK 55 (Wood v. Dieffenbach) 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

Wood v. Dieffenbach, 1947 OK 55, 177 P.2d 502, 198 Okla. 263, 1947 Okla. LEXIS 426 (Okla. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, J.

This action was instituted by Nevin J. Dieffenbach against P. E. Wood to quiet title to certain described lands in Okfuskee county. Judgment was for the plaintiff.

There is no dispute between the parties as to the following pertinent facts: Action to quiet title was filed by the plaintiff March 15, 1944. Upon trial in the district court June 19, 1944, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff quieting his title to the lands involved. No motion for new trial was filed by defendant until December 14, 1944. This motion was denominated “Motion for a New Trial on Grounds of Newly Discovered Evidence — Affidavit Attached,” and was overruled on the same day. Petition in error was filed in this court July 21, 1945. Since the petition in error was not filed within six months from the overruling of the motion for new trial (12 O.S. 1941 §972) nothing is presented to this court for review.

This being the state of the record, it is not necessary to pass upon the question of the sufficiency of the alleged motion for new trial purportedly based upon newly discovered evidence.

Appeal dismissed.

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

ARNOLD, J.

This action was instituted by Nevin J. Dieffenbach against P. E. Wood to quiet title to certain described lands in Okfuskee county. Judgment was for the plaintiff.

There is no dispute between the parties as to the following pertinent facts: Action to quiet title was filed by the plaintiff March 15, 1944. Upon trial in the district court June 19, 1944, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff quieting his title to the lands involved. No motion for new trial was filed by defendant until December 14, 1944. This motion was denominated “Motion for a New Trial on Grounds of Newly Discovered Evidence — Affidavit Attached,” and was overruled on the same day. Petition in error was filed in this court July 21, 1945. Since the petition in error was not filed within six months from the overruling of the motion for new trial (12 O.S. 1941 §972) nothing is presented to this court for review.

This being the state of the record, it is not necessary to pass upon the question of the sufficiency of the alleged motion for new trial purportedly based upon newly discovered evidence.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1947 OK 55, 177 P.2d 502, 198 Okla. 263, 1947 Okla. LEXIS 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-dieffenbach-okla-1947.