TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tishomingo Electric Light & Power Co. v. Harris

Tishomingo Electric Light and Power Co. v. Harris

Tishomingo Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Harris, 1911 OK 58, 113 P. 713
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 10, 1911
Docket
No. 1825
Judges
Dunn
Citations
113 P. 7131911 OK 5828 Okla. 101911 Okla. LEXIS 71
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Expiration of Time — Dismissal. Where more than one year has intervened between the rendition of the final order sought to be reviewed and the filing of the petition in error in the Supreme Court, this court has no jurisdiction to review such final order. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from District Court, Johnston County; Bobert M. Bainey, Judge. Action by R. M. Harris against the Tishomingo Electric Light & Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Dunn

DUNN, C. J.

This case presents error from the district court of Johnston county. June 11, 1909, a verdict was returned by a jury for plaintiff, on which the court rendered judgment. Within the statutory time defendant filed a motion for new trial, which, on June 14, 1909, was by the court denied. June 29, 1910, petition in error and case-made were lodged in this court, in which review of the judgment and order of the trial court denying the defendant a new trial is sought. A motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the same has not been commenced in this court within one year after the rendition of the judgment or the final order complained of has been filed, which must be sustained.

Section 6082, Comp. Laws of Okla. 1909, provides:

“No proceeding for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced unless within one year after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of, or in case the person entitled to such proceeding be an infant, a person of unsound mind, or imprisoned, within one year as aforesaid, exclusive of the time of such disability.”

This statute has, by this court and by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma, on numerous occasions, been held mandatory.

Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. et al. v. Beale, 4 Okla. 712 , 47 Pac. 481 ;

Blanchard v. United States, 6 Okla. 587 , 52 Pac. 736 ;

Vandervoort v. Board of Com’rs, 8 Okla. 227 , 57 Pac. 167 ;

Hoffman v. Board of Com'rs, 8 Okla. 225 , 57 Pac. 167 ;

Sumner et al. v. Sherwood, 25 Okla. 70 , 105 Pac. 642 .

More than one year having elapsed between the rendition of the judgment and order complained of in this action and the filing of the petition in error and case-made in this court, we are with *12 out jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 11913: 11914: 51916: 119122026peak 1914 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Howard v. Arkansaw1916 OK 703, 158 P. 437
  2. School Dist. No. 38 v. MacKey, County Treasurer1914 OK 626, 144 P. 1032
  3. Malloy v. Johnson1914 OK 110, 139 P. 310
  4. State Savings Bank of Manchester, Iowa v. Bedden1913 OK 459, 134 P. 20
  5. Fairbanks-Morse & Co. v. Thurmond1912 OK 176, 122 P. 167
  6. Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Howenstine1914 OK 48, 138 P. 381

Most recent

  1. Howard v. Arkansaw1916 OK 703, 158 P. 437
  2. School Dist. No. 38 v. MacKey, County Treasurer1914 OK 626, 144 P. 1032
  3. Phillips v. Dillingham1914 OK 490, 144 P. 363
  4. Comanche Mercantile Co. v. Curlee Clothing Co.1914 OK 430, 143 P. 190
  5. Malloy v. Johnson1914 OK 110, 139 P. 310
  6. Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Howenstine1914 OK 48, 138 P. 381

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
Blanchard v. United States, 1898 OK 5, 52 P. 736 12
Sumner v. Sherwood, 1909 OK 296, 105 P. 642 11
Vandervoort v. Bd. of Comrs. Pawnee Co., 1899 OK 21, 57 P. 167 6
Keokuk Falls Improvement Co. v. Beale, 47 P. 481 (Okla. 1896) 5

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