TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Edwards v. Jewell

Edwards v. Jewell Et Al.

Edwards v. Jewell, 1909 OK 162, 104 P. 335
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 13, 1909
Docket
No. 180
Judges
Dunn, Hayes, Turner, Williams, Kane
Citations
104 P. 3351909 OK 16224 Okla. 1721909 Okla. LEXIS 22
Disposition
Petition in error dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Method of Review — Petition in Error. A judgment rendered in a United States Court for the Indian Territory prior to the admission oí the state cannot be brought to the Supreme Court of the state for review by a proceeding in error, with a petition in error and transcript. ' (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory, at Muslcogeej William R. Lawrence, Judge. Action by Louisa Edwards against M. S. Jewell and another. Judgment for defendants, and 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, J.

On the 25th day of February, 1907, there was filed in the office of the clerk of the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory at Muskogee, on the equity side of the docket, a complaint by plaintiff in error against the defendants in error. Issues were made up, and the case was transferred to the law docket, and trial had on November 7, 1907, resulting in a judgment for the defendants. November 10, 1907, plaintiff filed her motion for new trial, which was by the court considered and overruled. November 15, 1907, a bill of exceptions was tendered, and was by the presiding judge allowed. The same was then filed in the office of the clerk of that court. May 7, 1908, the bill of exceptions mentioned, with a petition in error attached, accompanied by a waiver of issuance and service of summons, were filed in the office of the clerk of this court. The *173 cause now comes on to be considered, and it is insisted in this court by counsel for defendants in error that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, as the same is not brought here in accordance with the procedure obtaining in the jurisdiction where and at the time judgment was rendered.

In our judgment this position is well taken. This court, in the ease of Parks v. City of Ada, ante, p. 168, 103 Pac. 601 , in an opinion delivered at this term of court, holds:

“A judgment rendered in a United States Court for the Indian Territory prior to the admission of the state cannot be brought to the Supreme Court of the state for review by a proceeding in error, with a petition in error and transcript.”

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Hayes, Turner, and Williams, JJ., concur; Kane, C. J., absent and not sitting.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hillis v. Addle1912 OK 801, 128 P. 702

Most recent

  1. Hillis v. Addle1912 OK 801, 128 P. 702

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hobart Nat. Bank v. McMurrough, 1909 OK 173, 103 P. 601 7

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