Clark v. Drake
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
WILLIAMS, J.
On March 16, 1911, judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in error. On the same day motion for new trial was filed, and on May 1, 1911, said motion was overruled. Motion is now made by the defendant in error to dismiss the proceeding in error in this court, on the ground that the same was not commenced within one year from the date *526 of the overruling of said motion for a new trial. Neither has any summons in error been issued, nor any praecipe for summons in error been filed with the clerk of this court, nor has any waiver of the issuance of such summons in error been made, nor any appearance entered on the part of the defendant in error.
The motion is sustained.
Coleman v. Eaton, 26 Okla. 858 , 110 Pac. 672 ;
Hartsell v. Edwards, 29 Okla. 119 , 116 Pac. 942 ;
Simmons v. Lauffer, 29 Okla. 132 , 116 Pac. 943 .
TURNER, C. J., and HAYES, KANE, and DUNN, JJ„ concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.