Feterly v. Gage
FETERLY Et Al. v. GAGE Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiffs in error, in their petition in error, complain of the action of the trial court in rendering judgment against them in favor of defendants in error on the 4th day of May, 192~, and predicate two assignments of error on the action of the trial court in rendering said judgment. The petition in errol' was filed in this court on January 11, 1027.
Section 798, `Comp, Stats. 1921, provides that proceedings for reviewing, vacating, or modifying judgments or final orders shall l)e commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or final order com~ plained of.
The six months' period in which to prosecute the appeal from said judgment in this cause expired November 4, 1926, and this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment appealed twin. Landers v. Bank of Commerce of Okmulgee. 106 Okla. 59 , 233 Pac. 200 ; Gelabert v. State. 104 Okla. 31 , 230 Pac. 230 .
Plaintiffs in error filed two motions and a petition ii~ the trial court to vacate said judgment rendered `by the trial court on May 4. 192G, and in their petition in error predicate error on the action of the trial court in overruling said motions and denying relief under the petition.
No final order is contained in the case-made showing the action of the trial court thereon, and such action of the trial eou~t is shown only by the clerk's oinutes, which are no part of the record, and presents nothing to this court for review. Lillard v. Meisberger, 113 Okla. 228 , 240 Pac. 1067 .
Undei siieh a state of the record a~ in this case, the appeal should be and is dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 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.