TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Durant v. Munford

DURANT Et Al. v. MUNFORD

Durant v. Munford, 1913 OK 470, 134 P. 50
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 22, 1913
Docket
No. 4931
Judges
Hayes, Dunn
Citations
134 P. 501913 OK 47038 Okla. 5521913 Okla. LEXIS 413
Disposition
Dismissed.
Cited by 7
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal—Service of Summons- A petition in error was filed on the last day of the ■ statutory period for commencing a proceeding in error,, and on the same date, a summons in error was issued, but service thereof was not had within 60 days after the issuance of the same. Held, that the proceeding was not commenced within the period required by the statute, and that the same should he dismissed. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from Sup&tdor Court, Grady County; Will Linn> Judge. Action between Gibbie Dnrant and others and D. W. Munford. From the judgment, Durant and others bring ■’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 — Hayes

HAYES, C. J.

A petition in error and case-made was filed in this .cause on the last day of the statutory period for perfecting appeal from the judgment sought to be reversed. On the same day a summons in error was issued; but it does not appear that this summons- in error, or any alias summons, was ever served upon defendant in error within 60 days after the issuance of said summons in error and the expiration of the statutory period for commencing .a proceeding in error in this court. In fact it does not -appear that any service of summons has ever been had upon defendant in error. Upon the authority of School Dist. No.

39, Kiowa County, v. Fisher, 23 Okla. 9 , 99 Pac. 646 , and Wedd v. Gates et al., 15 Okla. 602 , 82 Pac. 808 , the cause should be dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except DUNN, J., absent and not participating.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1914: 11915: 41917: 11920: 119142026peak 1915 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Herod's Estate1914 OK 19, 137 P. 1174
  2. White Lumber Co. v. Beasley1915 OK 130, 146 P. 1082
  3. Wahl v. White Sewing MacH. Co.1915 OK 136, 147 P. 301
  4. Steele v. Million1915 OK 771, 155 P. 495
  5. Pioneer Canal Co. v. Akin153 P. 890 (Wyo. 1915)
  6. Kansas Nat. Bank of Wichita v. Goodner-Horne Co.1917 OK 9, 162 P. 772

Most recent

  1. Pioneer Canal Co. v. Akin192 P. 680 (Wyo. 1920)
  2. Kansas Nat. Bank of Wichita v. Goodner-Horne Co.1917 OK 9, 162 P. 772
  3. Pioneer Canal Co. v. Akin153 P. 890 (Wyo. 1915)
  4. Steele v. Million1915 OK 771, 155 P. 495
  5. Wahl v. White Sewing MacH. Co.1915 OK 136, 147 P. 301
  6. White Lumber Co. v. Beasley1915 OK 130, 146 P. 1082

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Wedd v. Gates, 1905 OK 92, 82 P. 808 40
Sch. Dist. No. 39, Kiowa Cty. v. Fisher, 1909 OK 10, 99 P. 646 19

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