TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

White v. Security Nat. Bank of Oklahoma City

WHITE Et Al. v. SECURITY NAT. BANK OF OKLAHOMA CITY

White v. Sec. Nat. Bank of Okla. City, 1930 OK 420, 291 P. 965
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 16, 1930
Docket
No. 21479
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
291 P. 9651930 OK 420145 Okla. 361930 Okla. LEXIS 148

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from thef order of the district court of Grady county made and entered on the 17th day of October, 1929, authorizing and directing the sheriff to amend the return on the summons served in the action to speak the truth and denying plaintiffs in error’s motion to vacate the judgment previously rendered in said cause upon the grounds no summons had ever been served upon them.

Motion for new trial was filed October 19, 1929, and overruled January 2, 1930. Petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this court June 27, 1930. The *37 defendant in error has filed in this court its motion to dismiss the appeal upon jurisdictional grounds, alleging the appeal was not filed within the time allowed by law, and urges that the filing and determination of a motion for a new trial in this cause is unnecessary and did not extend the time in which to file the appeal in this court.

The filing and determination of a motion for new trial upon a contested question of fact not arising upon the pleadings, but upon motion, is unnecessary to authorize this court to review an order made upon such hearing, and the filling thereof does not extend the time in which to commence a proceeding in error in this court. Ginn v. Knight, 106 Okla. 4 , 232 Pac. 936 ; Butler v. Archer, 130 Okla. 241 , 266 Pac. 1106 ; Barfield Petroleum Co. v. Pickering Lumber Co., 137 Okla. 151 , 278 Pac. 391 ; Revard v. White, 139 Okla. 102 , 281 Pac. 258 ; Hill v. McCleery, 141 Okla. 205 , 284 Pac. 646 .

Under the rule above stated and long followed by. this court, the motion for new trial filed by the plaintiffs in error was unnecessary and did not extend the time in which to commence proceedings in error, and for the reason the appeal was not filed in this court within six months from the date of the order sought to have reviewed the appeal is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1935: 11939: 11950: 119352026peak 1935 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Durham v. Sharum1950 OK 232, 222 P.2d 1029
  2. Texas Title Guaranty Co. v. Mardis1939 OK 477, 98 P.2d 593
  3. Hoppe v. Bentley1935 OK 73, 40 P.2d 678

Most recent

  1. Durham v. Sharum1950 OK 232, 222 P.2d 1029
  2. Texas Title Guaranty Co. v. Mardis1939 OK 477, 98 P.2d 593
  3. Hoppe v. Bentley1935 OK 73, 40 P.2d 678

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Ginn v. Knight, 1924 OK 806, 232 P. 936 34
Barfield Petroleum Co. v. Pickering Lumber Co., 1929 OK 236, 278 P. 391 19
Hill v. McCleery, 1930 OK 62, 284 P. 646 8
In re Guardianship of Butler, 1927 OK 465, 266 P. 1106 25
Anderson v. Gunther City Coke, 1929 OK 425, 281 P. 258 12
Revard v. White, 1929 OK 440, 281 P. 982 7

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