TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tidal Pipe Line Co. v. Daugherty

TIDAL PIPE LINE CO. Et Al. v. DAUGHERTY Et Al.

Tidal Pipe Line Co. v. Daugherty, 1940 OK 283, 103 P.2d 534
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 21, 1940
Docket
No. 29415.
Judges
Riley, Osborn, Hurst, Davison, Danner
Citations
103 P.2d 5341940 OK 283187 Okla. 4681940 Okla. LEXIS 273

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

*469 PER CURIAM.

This was a proceeding in garnishment against the Washington National Insurance Company, insurance carrier, and H. C. Daugherty. On the 8th day of May, 1939, the district court of Pawnee county, Okla., entered its order sustaining the motion of the Washington National Insurance Company to discharge said garnishment.

A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the cause was not filed herein within 30 days from the date the order discharging garnishment was entered. The motion must be sustained. This court has many times held that in order to appeal from a motion to discharge the garnishee and the order made thereon discharging the garnishee, said appeal must be taken within 30 days as provided by section 555, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 983. Berry-Beall Dry Goods Co. v. Adams, 87 Okla. 291 , 211 P. 79 ; Phillips v. Button, 126 Okla. 138 , 258 P. 879 ; Security Bldg. & Loan Ass’n of Oklahoma City v. Ward, 174 Okla. 238 , 50 P. 2d 651 ; State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. Elam, 161 Okla. 288 , 18 P. 2d 865 ; Stumpf v. Pederson, 171 Okla. 145 , 40 P. 2d 15 .

The appeal is dismissed.

RILEY, OSBORN, HURST, DAVISON, and DANNER, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1942: 119422026peak 1942 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ousborn v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.1942 OK 281, 127 P.2d 854

Most recent

  1. Ousborn v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.1942 OK 281, 127 P.2d 854

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 5

DepthCaseCited by
Berry-Beall Dry Goods Co. v. Adams, 1922 OK 326, 211 P. 79 23
Sec. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Ward, 1935 OK 996, 50 P.2d 651 23
State ex rel. Com'rs of the Land Office v. Elam, 1933 OK 51, 18 P.2d 865 2
Stumpf v. Pederson, 1935 OK 24, 40 P.2d 15 2
Phillips v. Button, 1927 OK 245, 258 P. 879 1

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