Merriett v. Newton
MERRIETT Et Al. v. NEWTON Et Al.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
BRETT, J.
The defendants in error move to dismiss the appeal in this case, for the reason ¡that no summons in error from the Supreme Court was issued and served as required by law.
The facts are: That the- order overruling the motion for new trial was made and entered March 1, 1917. The plaintiffs in .error at -that time gave notice of appeal in open court, which would be sufficient under section 1, chapter 219, 1917 Session Laws. But that- law did mot become effective until March 23, 1917, or 22 days after 'the order appealed from was made. And it is the holding of this court ¡that the right of appeal is governed by the provisions of the law applicable thereto at the time the judgment appealed from -is rendered. Oklahoma Land Co. v. Thomas, 43 Okla. 217 , 142 Pac. 801 . Ahd under the precise conditions involved in this case in Buckner v. Walton Trust Co., 67 Okla. —, 168 Pac. 797 , the court held that in the absence of a summons in error, an appeal taken from a judgment rendered January 4, 1917, could'“'not be deemed to have been commenced in this court so as to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of the appeal."
Hence, since the law in force at ¡the time the order appealed from has not been complied with, and the 1917 act is not retroactive,' the appeal must be dismissed.
All the Justices concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.