TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reed v. Woolly

REED Et Al. v. WOOLEY

Reed v. Woolly, 1912 OK 402, 123 P. 1121
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 14, 1912
Docket
No. 3272
Judges
Kane
Citations
123 P. 11211912 OK 40231 Okla. 7831912 Okla. LEXIS 148
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Proceedings to Transfer Cause — Time for Taking Proceedings. Where the court below overruled a demurrer to the petition, and, the defendants declining to plead, judgment was rendered against them, the time to perfect an appeal from such judgment commences to run from the rendition thereof, and not from the time the motion for a new trial was overruled. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from Pontotoc County Court; Joel Terrell, Judge. Action by J. A. Woolly against W. J. Reed and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants 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 — Kane

KANE, J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon the motion to dismiss the appeal, filed by the defendant in error. It seems that the court below overruled a demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition, and, the defendants declining to plead further, judgment was rendered against them. This judgment was rendered on the 18th day of August, 1910; thereafter, on the 19th day of August, 1910, defendants filed their motion for a new trial, *784 which was overruled on the 12th day of November, 1910. On the 6th day of November, 1911, defendants below, plaintiffs in error, began this proceeding in error by filing in this court a petition in error, to which they attached a transcript of the record, for the purpose of reviewing the order of the court overruling the demurrer to the petition. Defendant in error contends that the appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by law. We think his contention is well taken.

“A motion for a new tidal is not necessary, however, in order to review a decision that determines an issue of law, since a new trial is an examination of an issue of fact. Consequently, where error appears upon a final judgment rendered upon the pleadings, there being no trial of any issue of fact, such error can be reviewed without a motion for a new trial.” (Burdick on New Trials and Appeals, p. 65.)

It has been held that “a motion for a new trial is unnecessary to enable this court to review the action of a trial court in rendering judgment upon the pleadings.”

Manes v. Hoss, 28 Okla. 489 , 114 Pac. 698 . And in the same case it was held that, “where the judgment appealed from is rendered upon the pleadings, the time from which to perfect the appeal commences with the rendition of the judgment, and not from the order of the court overruling a motion for new trial.”

We think the same rule applies where the judgment appealed from is rendered upon a demurrer to plaintiff’s petition. In such case, a motion for a new trial is unnecessary; and filing one will not extend the time for appealing prescribed by the statute. The only assignment of error presented to this court is that the court below erred in overruling the demurrer to plaintiff’s petition. The time from which to perfect the appeal commenced with the rendition of judgment, and not from the order •of the court overruling the unnecessary motion for a new trial, The appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 31913: 11915: 11942: 119122026peak 1912 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Richardson Et Vir v. Beidleman126 P. 818 (Okla. 1912)
  2. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee1913 OK 647, 136 P. 591
  3. Boulanger v. Midland Valley Mercantile Co.1912 OK 714, 128 P. 113
  4. Holcombe v. Lawyers' Co-Operative Pub. Co.1912 OK 664, 143 P. 1046
  5. Burton v. De Bolt1915 OK 494, 149 P. 1079
  6. Glasco v. Wilson1942 OK 228, 126 P.2d 713

Most recent

  1. Glasco v. Wilson1942 OK 228, 126 P.2d 713
  2. Burton v. De Bolt1915 OK 494, 149 P. 1079
  3. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee1913 OK 647, 136 P. 591
  4. Boulanger v. Midland Valley Mercantile Co.1912 OK 714, 128 P. 113
  5. Holcombe v. Lawyers' Co-Operative Pub. Co.1912 OK 664, 143 P. 1046
  6. Richardson Et Vir v. Beidleman126 P. 818 (Okla. 1912)

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
Manes v. Hoss, 1911 OK 100, 114 P. 698 20

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