TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bickford v. Bruce

Bickford v. Bruce Et Al.

Bickford v. Bruce, 1908 OK 172, 97 P. 648
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 10, 1908
Docket
Nos. 916, Ind. T.
Judges
Hayes
Citations
97 P. 6481908 OK 17221 Okla. 8921908 Okla. LEXIS 185
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Time of Taking Appeal — Ind. Ter. Procedure, Under Act. Cong. March 3, 1905, c. 1479, sec. 12, 33 Stat. 1081 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 208), providing that appeals and writs of error shall be taken from the United States Courts in the Indian Territory to the United States Court of Appeals of said territory in the same manner that cases are taken by appeal and writ of error from the Circuit Courts of- the United States to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit, a writ of error must be sued out within six months after the entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from, the United- States Court for the Southern District of the Indian Territory, at Marietta; Hosea Townsend, Judge. Action by H. K. Bickford against Stanley R. Bruce and I. R. Mason. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. This case was tried in the United States Court for the Southern District of the Indian Territory, at Marietta, and judgment rendered therein on October 26, 1906, in favor of defendants in error. A writ of error was sued out and appeal perfected on October 14, 1907. The case was pending in the United States Court of Appeals of the Indian Territory at the time of the admission of the state into the Union, and is now before this court-for final disposition under the provisions of the Enabling Act.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hayes

Hayes, J.

A motion has been filed herein to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the writ of error was not sued out within 6 months from the date of the entry of the judgment in the trial court. Nearly 12 months elapsed from the date of the entry of the judgment in the trial court until the writ of error was sued out, and under the rule announced by this court at the present term in Edward Porter et al. v. Eck E. Brook, ante, p. 885, 97 Pac. 645 , the motion should be sustained; and it is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1908: 11910: 119082026peak 1908 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chouteau v. Chouteau1910 OK 6, 106 P. 854
  2. Utterback v. Rock Island Plow Co.1908 OK 197, 97 P. 649

Most recent

  1. Chouteau v. Chouteau1910 OK 6, 106 P. 854
  2. Utterback v. Rock Island Plow Co.1908 OK 197, 97 P. 649

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
Porter v. Brook, 1908 OK 178, 97 P. 645 14

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