Case ID: okla_108/html/0180-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Estate of BLAINE. WRIGHT, Supt., v. EVANS, Gdn.
    No. 15250
    Opinion Filed April 7, 1925.
    (Syllabus.)
    1. Appeal and Error — Appealable Orders— Refusal to Dismiss Appeal to District Court,
    An order made by the district court overruling a motion to dismiss an appeal from the comity court is not an appealable order.
    2. Appeal and Error — Review — When Motion for New Trial Unnecessary.
    The filing and determining of a motion for a new trial of a contested question of fact not arising upon the pleadings, but upon a motion, is unnecessary to authorize this court to review the order made upon such hearing.
    Error from District Court, Osage County; Jesse J. Worten, Judge.
    In the matter of the estate of James G. Blaine, an incompetent; John D. Evans, guardian. Prom order of district court overruling motion by .J. George Wright, Superintendent of the Osage Agency, to dismiss appeal from county court! he brings error.
    Dismissed.
    J. M. Humphrey, for plaintiff in error.
    Leahy, Macdonald & Piles, for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

.This case a.rose in the county court of Osage county, and from an order made in that court, defendant appealed to the district court. In the district cour1'-defendant, who is plaintiff in error in this court, moved the court to dismiss the appeal. This motion was overruled and plaintiff in error excepted. Plaintiff in error filed motion for a new trial, which was overruled, to which plaintiff in error excepted and gave notice of appeal.

An order made by the district court overruling a motion to dismiss an appeal from the county court is not an appealable order. In re Cochran’s Estate, 48 Okla. 672, 149 Pac. 1089.

Note. — See under (1) 3 O. J. p. 588 § 425. (2) 3 C. J. p. 972 § 866.

A motion for new trial was not necessary. Powell et al. v. Nichols et al., 26 Okla. 735, 110 Pac. 762.

The appeal is dismissed.