TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Palmer-Gregory Chiropractic College v. Hart

Palmer-Gregory Chiropractic Coll. v. Hart, 1910 OK 243, 110 P. 725
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 12, 1910
Docket
No. 1517
Judges
Dunn
Citations
110 P. 7251910 OK 24326 Okla. 8551910 Okla. LEXIS 150
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Expiration of Time — Dismissal. Where more than one year has intervened between the rendition of the judgment or final order sought to be reviewed and the filing of the petition in error in the 'Supreme Court, this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment of the trial court. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
'Error from Superior Court, Oklahoma Countyj A. N. Mv/nden, Judge. Action by the Palmer-Gregory Chiropractic College against Charlott D. Hart. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, plaintiff brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dunn

DUNN, C. J.

This case presents error from the superior court of Oklahoma county. The final judgment of the district court in which a demurrer to the petition is sustained was entered January 8, 1909. A petition in error was filed in this court April 11, 1910; the same being more than three months over a year from the date of the judgment. The result of the delay in the commencement of the prroceedings in error is that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the case.

Doorley v. Buford & George Mfg. Co., Okla. 594, 49 Pac. 936 ;

Ryland et al. v. W. H. Coyle et al., 7 Okla. 226 , 54 Pac. 456 ;

Hebeison v. Hatchell, 17 Okla. 260 , 87 Pac. 643 ;

Strange et al. v. Crismon, 22 Okla. 841, 98 Pac. 937 ;

Sumner et al. v. Sherwood, 25 Okla. 70 , 105 Pac. 642 . And in the case of John v. Paullin et al., 24 Okla. 636 , 106 Pac. 838 , it was held that, after the statutory time for appeal *856 has elapsed, a judgment cannot be reviewed even if all the parties stipulate that the appellate court may do so.

The action not having been begun within the statutory time, this court acquires no jurisdiction thereof, and the proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 11920: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Maggart v. Wakefield1912 OK 197, 123 P. 1042
  2. Wagnon v. Davison1920 OK 303, 192 P. 565

Most recent

  1. Wagnon v. Davison1920 OK 303, 192 P. 565
  2. Maggart v. Wakefield1912 OK 197, 123 P. 1042

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Strange v. Crismon, 1908 OK 262, 98 P. 937 32
Sumner v. Sherwood, 1909 OK 296, 105 P. 642 11
Ryland v. Coyle, 1898 OK 79, 54 P. 456 11
Hebeison v. Hatchell, 1906 OK 56, 87 P. 643 5
Doorley v. Buford & George Mfg. Co., 49 P. 936 (Okla. 1897) 26
John v. Paullin, 1909 OK 224, 104 P. 365 21
Davis v. Elliott, 1910 OK 8, 106 P. 838 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list