Case ID: okla_29/html/0194-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      HAYES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KING et al. v. ED HOCKADAY & CO.
    No. 1735.
    Opinion Filed July 12, 1910.
    Rehearing Denied June 8, 1911.
    (118 Pac. 256.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Time of Taking — Dismissal. Under section 6082, Compiled Laws of Oklahoma 1909, proceedings for reversing, vacating, or modifying a judgment or final order must be commenced in the Supreme Court within one year after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order which is sought to be reviewed in this court, unless the person entitled to such proceeding be under disability as provided in said section.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Mrror from District Court, Kingfisher County; A. H. Huston, Judge.
    
    Action between George M. King and another and Ed I-Iock-aday & Co. From the judgment, King and another bring error.
    Dismissed.
    
      M. L. Boynton and Robberts Sr Curran, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      D. K. Cunningham and W. A. McCartney, for defendants m error.
   HAYES, J.

This proceeding is now before us upon motion of defendants in error to dismiss. The motion for a new trial was overruled by the trial court on May 28, 1909. The petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on May 31, 1910, more than one year after the order of the trial court overruling the motion for a new trial. This court is therefore, upon the authority of the following cases, without jurisdiction to review the matters complained of in this proceeding: Sumner et al. v. Sherwood, 25 Okla. 70, 105 Pac. 642; Court of Honor v. Wallace, 23 Okla. 734, 102 Pac. 111; McMurtry v. Byrd et al., 23 Okla. 597, 101 Pac. 1117; Hebeison v. Hatchell, 17 Okla. 260, 87 Pac. 643.

• The motion to dismiss is sustained.

All the Justices concur.