Wood v. McEwen

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Wood v. McEwen

1914 OK 599, 144 P. 590, 45 Okla. 11, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 229

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 24, 1914

Docket5651

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1914 OK 599 (Wood v. McEwen) 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. McEwen, 1914 OK 599, 144 P. 590, 45 Okla. 11, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 229 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

RIDDLE, J.

Judgment denying ipotion to reinstate this cause was rendered in the trial court on March 31, 1914. The proceedings in error were filed in this court on October 4, 1914. Motion to dismiss has been filed, upon the -ground that the pro *12 ceedings were not commenced in this court within the time required by chapter 18, Sess. Laws 1910-11, requiring that proceedings in error must be commenced in this court within six months from the date of rendition of the judgment complained of. It appears that more than six months have elapsed since the rendition of the order by the trial court complained of, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case on its merits.

The motion to dismiss is therefore sustained, and the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.

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

RIDDLE, J.

Judgment denying ipotion to reinstate this cause was rendered in the trial court on March 31, 1914. The proceedings in error were filed in this court on October 4, 1914. Motion to dismiss has been filed, upon the -ground that the pro *12 ceedings were not commenced in this court within the time required by chapter 18, Sess. Laws 1910-11, requiring that proceedings in error must be commenced in this court within six months from the date of rendition of the judgment complained of. It appears that more than six months have elapsed since the rendition of the order by the trial court complained of, and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case on its merits.

The motion to dismiss is therefore sustained, and the appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 599, 144 P. 590, 45 Okla. 11, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-mcewen-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack