Chouteau v. Chouteau
Chouteau Et Al. v. Chouteau
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Williams, J.
The order from which the writ of error was sued out was made and entered on the 9th day of May, 1906, and the writ allowed on the 30th day of April, A. D. 1907.
The defendant in error moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the same was not prosecuted within six months from the time of the rendition of the judgment and the entering of the order sought to be appealed from. This question has been not only by this court, but also by the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory, and of the Eighth Circuit, *427 decided favorably to the contention of the defendant in error.
Porter et al. v. Brook, 21 Okla. 885 , 97 Pac. 645 ;
Moberly v. Roth et al., 23 Okla. 856 , 102 Pac. 182 ;
Friend et al. v. Roth et al., 23 Okla. 864 , 102 Pac. 185 ; Friend et al. v. Roth et al., 23 Okla. 866 , 102 Pac. 186 ;
Bickford v. Bruce et al., 21 Okla. 892 , 97 Pac. 648 ;
Utterback v. Rock Island Plow Co., 22 Okla. 263 , 97 Pac. 649 ;
In re Terrell’s Estate, 6 Ind. T. 412 , 98 S.
W.
143 ;
Lewis et al. v. Sittel, 7 Ind. T. 602 , 104 S. W. 850 ;
Id., 165 Fed. 157 , 91 C. C. A. 191 .
The appeal is dismissed.
Kane, C. J., and Dunn and Hayes, JJ., concur; Turner, J., not participating.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.