TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State ex rel. Com'rs of the Land Office v. Elam

STATE Ex Rel. COM’RS of the LAND OFFICE v. ELAM Et Al.

State ex rel. Com'rs of the Land Office v. Elam, 1933 OK 51, 18 P.2d 865
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 31, 1933
Docket
No. 22803
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
18 P.2d 8651933 OK 51161 Okla. 2881933 Okla. LEXIS 458

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This cause began after a judgment rendered on foreclosure and an issue of garnishment summons against Flora Westenhaber and Fred W. Garland, and on the 29th day of April, 1931, by proper journal ¡entry appearing at ease-made p. 92, the court sustained the demurrer interposed by the garnishee and discharged said garnishee:

From that order the state of Oklahoma, on relation of the Commissioners of the Dand Office, attempted to appeal by filing herein on September 8, 1981, their petition in error with case-made attached.

On September 30, 1932, defendant in error filed herein motion to dismiss, and raises the jurisdictional question that plaintiff in error had 30 days from the entering of the original order discharging the garnishee to appeal to this court. No response has been filed to this ¡motion, and inasmuch as the statei of Oklahoma is a party to these proceedings, we have examined the law and find that in the case of Egolf v. Rice, 117 Okla. 284 , 246 P. 58 , the court uses the following language:

“Where an appeal is taken from an order dissolving a garnishment, such an ’appeal, under section 809, Cl 0: S'. 1921, must be filed in this court within 30 days from date of order, and this rule applies notwithstanding the order to dissolve is entered upon a verdict of a jury or a judgment of the court after trial of a garnishment proceedings! upon the merits.”

The appearance in this court within 30 days being jurisdictional, the case must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

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

1940: 11942: 119402026peak 1940 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. First Nat. Bank of Duncan v. Wallace1942 OK 248, 127 P.2d 156
  2. Tidal Pipe Line Co. v. Daugherty1940 OK 283, 103 P.2d 534

Most recent

  1. First Nat. Bank of Duncan v. Wallace1942 OK 248, 127 P.2d 156
  2. Tidal Pipe Line Co. v. Daugherty1940 OK 283, 103 P.2d 534

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
Silveira v. Smith, 246 P. 58 (Cal. 1926) 13
Egolf v. Rice, 1926 OK 454, 246 P. 858 3

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