TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Oxford v. State

Oxford v. State, 1920 OK 355, 194 P. 101
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 30, 1920
Docket
No. 9683
Judges
Rainey
Citations
194 P. 1011920 OK 35580 Okla. 1031920 Okla. LEXIS 169
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Syllabus
(Syllabus by the Court.) Appeal and Error — Time for Proceedings— Motion for New Trial. Where no errors occurring at the trial are sought to be reviewed and the issue raised is one of law, a motion for new trial is not necessary to have the judgment reviewed, and therefore has no effect in extending the period from which the time for appealing would begin to run.
Summary
Error from County Court, Tillman County. Action by the State of Oklahoma against Jeff Oxford. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings 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 — Rainey

RAINEY, C. J.

This cause was submitted June 8, 1920, on motion of defendant in error to dismiss the appeal. No response has been filed to this motion to dismiss. It is therein urged that the appeal should be dismissed because not taken within the time provided by law.

It appears that the county court of Tillman county, on July 25, 1912, entered a judgment against plaintiff in error, Jeff Oxford; that on July 17, 1916, an order was made purporting to vacate such judgment; that on June 26, 1917, an order was made setting-aside the order of July 17, 1916, and modifying said judgment, reinstating same, and reducing the amount adjudged payable from $1,200 to $1,000. It is alleged that a motion for rehearing on this order was filed. The appeal was not filed in this court until December 29, 1917, more than six months from the rendition of said order.

The motion for rehearing or new trial would not operate to extend the time within which the order might be appealed from, for the reason that in order to have same reviewed in this court no motion for new- trial was necessary. A new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact, and an issue of fact arises upon the pleadings. The filing and determining of a motion for a new trial of a contested question of fact not arising upon the pleadings, but upon a motion, is unnecessary to authorize this court to review the order made upon such hearing. Powell et al. v. Nichols et al., 26 Okla. 734 ; McDermott v. Halleck, as Receiver, et al., 65 Kan. 403 ; Burdick on New Trials and Appeals, sec. 99, page 66. Where the issue raised is one of law, a motion for new trial is not necessary to have the decision determining same reviewed. Cowart v. Parker-Washington Co. et al., 40 Okla. 56 , 136 Pac. 153 ; Robe et al. v. Fullerton-Stuart Lumber Co., 47 Okla. 617 , 149 Pac. 1157 ; Williamson et al. v. Adams et al., 31 Okla. 503 , 122 Pac. 499 ; Bond v. Cook, 28 Okla. 446 , 114 Pac. 723 ; Dodge City Water Supply Co. v. City of Dodge City, 55 Kan. 60 , 39 Pac. 219 ;, Nute v. American Glucose Co., 55 Kan. 225 , 40 Pac. 279 .

The subsequent proceedings and orders were in no manner a trial of the cause, and the motion for new trial or rehearing could have no effect in extending the period from which the time for appealing began to run. The order modifying and reinstating the judgment was made June 26, 1917, and the appeal therefrom was not filed within six months thereafter as provided by law.

The motion is therefore sustained and the appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1924: 21929: 11932: 11943: 11963: 11964: 11965: 119242026peak 1924 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Coe136 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1943)
  2. Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Company1964 OK 162, 394 P.2d 515
  3. Barfield Petroleum Co. v. Pickering Lumber Co.1929 OK 236, 278 P. 391
  4. Mitchener v. City Com'rs, City of Okmulgee1924 OK 645, 228 P. 159
  5. Stokes v. State1965 OK 155, 410 P.2d 59
  6. Landers v. Bank of Commerce of Okmulgee1924 OK 1015, 233 P. 200

Most recent

  1. Stokes v. State1965 OK 155, 410 P.2d 59
  2. Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Company1964 OK 162, 394 P.2d 515
  3. Hyre v. Pratt1963 OK 91, 382 P.2d 18
  4. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Coe136 F.2d 771 (D.C. Cir. 1943)
  5. Fliedner v. Hinchee1932 OK 337, 11 P.2d 110
  6. Barfield Petroleum Co. v. Pickering Lumber Co.1929 OK 236, 278 P. 391

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 8

DepthCaseCited by
Cowart v. Parker-Wash. Co., 1913 OK 607, 136 P. 153 17
Bond v. Cook, 1911 OK 76, 114 P. 723 11
Robe v. Fullerton-Stuart Lumber Co., 1915 OK 473, 149 P. 1157 5
Powell v. Nichols, 1910 OK 244, 110 P. 762 59
McDermott v. Halleck, 69 P. 335 (Kan. 1902) 17
Dodge City Water-Supply Co. v. City of Dodge City, 55 Kan. 60 (1895) 9
Williamson v. Adams, 1912 OK 237, 122 P. 499 8
Nute v. Am. Glucose Co., 55 Kan. 225 (1895) 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