TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Thomason v. Champlin

THOMASON Et Al. v. CHAMPLIN

Thomason v. Champlin, 1914 OK 271, 141 P. 411
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 9, 1914
Docket
No. 3866
Judges
Riddle
Citations
141 P. 4111914 OK 27143 Okla. 861914 Okla. LEXIS 459
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal—Time for Proceedings. Where plaintiff in error fails to file his appeal in this court within six months from the date of the rendition of the judgment or order appealed from, as required by chapter 18, p. 35, Sess. Laws 1910-11, the same will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from District Court, Okfuskee County; John Caruthers, Judge. Action between Maud Thomason and Lee Thomason and H. C. Champlin, Jr. From an order granting a new trial, Maud Thomason and Lee Thomason 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 — Riddle

RIDDLE, J.

Plaintiffs in error, Maud Thomason and Lee Thomason, prosecute this proceeding in this court from an order granting defendant in error a new trial. The record shows that the motion for new trial was overruled in the district court of Okfuskee county on the 21st day of October, 1911.. The case-made was filed in this court on the 23d day of April, 1912, two days beyond the six months allowed by statute for perfecting an appeal. Defendant in error has filed his motion to dismiss the *87 appeal on the ground that this court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine said matter upon its merits, for the reason that said petition in error and case-made were not filed in this court with-. in six months from the date of the order appealed from. It is undoubtedly the law in this jurisdiction that, unless the case-made and petition in error are filed in this court within the time allowed by chapter 18, p. 35, Sess. Laws 1910-11, no jurisdiction is conferred upon this court to hear and determine said matter on its merits.

We are therefore of the opinion that the motion to dismiss the appeal is well taken, and that the same should be, and is, sustained.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 11916: 11918: 21919: 11921: 219152026peak 1918 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brown v. Parks1921 OK 24, 195 P. 133
  2. In re Springer1919 OK 202, 182 P. 713
  3. Pittsburg Mortgage Inv. Co. v. Savage1915 OK 472, 149 P. 1147
  4. Maz-He v. Jefferson Trust Co.1921 OK 145, 198 P. 319
  5. Continental Beneficial Ass'n v. Gray1918 OK 8, 169 P. 1070
  6. Incorporated Town of Caddo v. J. S. Terry Const. Co.159 P. 328 (Okla. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Maz-He v. Jefferson Trust Co.1921 OK 145, 198 P. 319
  2. Brown v. Parks1921 OK 24, 195 P. 133
  3. In re Springer1919 OK 202, 182 P. 713
  4. Littlefield v. Garner1918 OK 242, 172 P. 438
  5. Continental Beneficial Ass'n v. Gray1918 OK 8, 169 P. 1070
  6. Incorporated Town of Caddo v. J. S. Terry Const. Co.159 P. 328 (Okla. 1916)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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