From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watkins et al. v. Barnwell

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Dec 3, 1912
128 P. 511 (Okla. 1912)

Opinion

No. 4441

Opinion Filed December 3, 1912.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal — Summons. A petition in error filed in this court within the six months allowed by the statute, where neither waiver of issuance and service of summons in error is had, nor a praecipe for the same is filed, and summons issued thereon, nor general appearance made, within such statutory period, must on motion be dismissed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from District Court, Seminole County; Tom D. McKeown, Judge.

Action between Sylvester Watkins and others and J. M. Barnwell. From the judgment, Watkins and others bring error. Dismissed.

Crump, Fowler Skinner, for plaintiffs in error.

C. Dale Wolfe, for defendant in error.


On October 11, 1912, the plaintiffs in error filed their petition in error with case-made attached with the clerk of this court. According to the records of the clerk's office, plaintiffs in error have not filed any praecipe for the issuance of summons in error, neither has any waiver of the issuance of such summons nor any appearance in any way been made. The motion for a new trial was overruled on April 27, 1912. This proceeding in error should have been commenced within six months from that date. Holcombe v. Lawyers' Co-Op. Pub. Co., post; Grant v. Creed et al., ante, 128 P. 511.

A petition in error must be dismissed on motion, even though the same is filed in this court within the six months allowed under the statute, where no waiver of issuance and service of summons in error is had, and no praecipe for the same filed and summons issued thereon, or general appearance made within such statutory period. Hudson v. Lapsley et al., 29 Okla. 681, 119 P. 125; Simmons v. Lauffer, 29 Okla. 132, 116 P. 943; Hartsell v. Edwards et al., 29 Okla. 119, 116 P. 942; Coleman v. Eaton, 26 Okla. 858, 110 P. 672; Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. v. Bradham, 24 Okla. 250, 103 P. 591; Court of Honor v. Wallace et al., 23 Okla. 734, 102 P. 111; McMurtry v. Byrd et al., 23 Okla. 597, 101 P. 1117; Clark v. Drake, 33 Okla. 525, 126 P. 232.

The motion of the defendant in error for said proceeding in error to be dismissed must be sustained.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

Watkins et al. v. Barnwell

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Dec 3, 1912
128 P. 511 (Okla. 1912)
Case details for

Watkins et al. v. Barnwell

Case Details

Full title:WATKINS et al. v. BARNWELL

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Dec 3, 1912

Citations

128 P. 511 (Okla. 1912)
128 P. 511

Citing Cases

Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Buckholtz

Opinion Filed October 14, 1913.APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal — Summons. Syllabus same as Watkins et al. v.…

Wahl v. White Sewing Mach. Co.

We, therefore, must conclude that plaintiff in this action did not commence his proceeding within the…