Baugh v. Hudson
Baugh v. Hudson
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
(after stating the facts as above). The judgment in this case is a final judgment, because it dismisses the action, and there is *271 no motion for a new trial, nor is there any. certificate of the clerk which will enable us to review the record as a transcript. There is therefore nothing before this court. Stanard v. Sampson, 23 Okla. 13, 99 Pac. 796; Boyd v. Bryan, 11 Okla. 56, 65 Pac. 940; Bradford v. Brennan, 15 Okla. 47, 78 Pac. 387; Ahren-Ott Mfg. Co. v. Condon, 23 Okla. 365, 100 Pac. 556.
As there is no certificate of the clerk authenticating' this as a transcript, this court is without jurisdiction to consider any errors which might appear on the face of the record .
We therefore recommend that the appeal be dismissed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- BAUGH v. HUDSON Et Al.
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Presentation Below — Motion for New Trial. A motion for a new trial is necessary to give this court jurisdiction to review errors occurring at the trial of a case, where ■a final judgment has been rendered. %. SAME — Record — Transcript — Presentation for Review — Dismissal. Where, in an application for an injunction pending the action, the court hears evidence and renders a final judgment dismissing the, actioii, and no motion is filed for a new trial, and there is no certificate of the clerh, certifying the record as a transcript, this court has no jurisdiction to consider any of the alleged errors, and the appeal will be dismissed. (Syllabus by Devereux, C.)