Barker v. Honeywell
BARKER Et Al. v. HONEYWELL Et Al.
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
THACKER, J.
This ease is before this court upon a motion to dismiss the petition in error. Judgment was rendered by the trial court on' March 5, 1917, and on March 13, 1917, an order was made overruling a motion for- a new trial. A petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this court on August 20; 1917, but no praecipe for summons in error has -been filed nor summons served nor issued, nor has there been any waiver of such issuance 'or service of summons, nor a general appearance made by any defendant in .error, although more than nine months -have elapse® since the order overruling the motion fbr a new trial. Section 1, c. 219, Laws 1917, p. 403, was not effective until March 23, 1917, and is therefore inapplicable. Merriett v. Newton, 67 Okla. 150 , 169 Pac. 488 ; Buckner v. Walton Trust Co., 66 Okla. 240 , 168 Pac. 797 .
*150 The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the petition in error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.’
All the Justices concur.
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.