St. Clair v. Hufnagle

Supreme Court of Oklahoma January 28, 1913

St. Clair v. Hufnagle, 131 P. 171 (Okla. 1913)

35 Okla. 394; 1913 OK 74; 1912 Okla. LEXIS 588

Williams

Opinion of the Court

WILLIAMS, J.

Counsel for defendants in error moves to dismiss this proceeding in error on the ground that “more than one year elapsed after final judgment in the trial court and be^ fore the petition in error was filed in the Supreme Court; that the motion for a new trial was overruled in the trial court on the 11th day of February, 1911, and the petition in error was filed in the Supreme Court on the Í3th day of February, 1912.”

The record bears out the contention of the defendants in error. The motion to dismiss is sustained. Richardson et vir v. Beidleman et al., 33 Okla. 463, 126 Pac. 816.

All the Justices concur.

Reference

Full Case Name: ST. CLAIR v. HUFNAGLE Et Al.
Status: Published
Syllabus: APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Time for Filing — Review. A motion for a new trial, being overruled on February 11, 1911, the petition in error with ease-made attached was filed with the clerk of this court op February 13, 1912. Held, that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain same. (Syllabus by the Court.)