DocketNumber: No. 26359.
Citation Numbers: 49 P.2d 684, 174 Okla. 22
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Filed Date: 10/1/1935
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
The appeal was filed herein May 16, 1935, and the journal entry of judgment shows that the same was entered on the 15th day of November, 1934. A motion to dismiss has been filed which, among other things, alleges that the appeal was not filed in this court within the six months as provided by law.
Since it is evident that the appeal must be dismissed upon this ground, the other grounds will not be considered. After the rendition of judgment on the aforesaid date, a motion for new trial was filed. There is no order of the court shown overruling the same. The defendant in error states that it is not necessary to have an order overruling the motion for new trial in this case for the reason that the same was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, and cites a number of cases supporting that rule. Either the case requires a motion for new trial or it does not. If it requires a motion for new trial under the rule laid down in the case of Lillard v. Meisberger,
This court had held many times that an appeal must be filed within six months after the entry of the order appealed from. Johnson v. Carey-Lombard Young Co.,
McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, BUSBY, WELCH, PHELPS, CORN, and GIBSON, JJ., concur. BAYLESS, J., absent.
Standard Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Anthony Wholesale Gro. , 62 Okla. 242 ( 1916 )
Lillard v. Meisberger , 113 Okla. 228 ( 1925 )
Brigham v. Davis , 126 Okla. 90 ( 1927 )
Richardson Et Vir v. Beidleman , 33 Okla. 463 ( 1912 )
Johnston v. Carey, Lombard, Young Co. , 163 Okla. 197 ( 1933 )
Starr v. Woods , 162 Okla. 242 ( 1933 )