Case ID: okla_113/html/0115-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PEtR CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SANDERSON v. HANCHETT BOND CO. et al.
    No. 16327
    Opinion Filed Sept. 15, 1925.
    Motion to Vacate- Dismissal. Denied Sept. 29, 1925.
    . .(Syllabus.)'.
    Appeal and Errorrr-Failure to Give Notice-^ Dismissal.
    Where no notice is given o-f an intention t-d -appeal, themppé'al':iwHl, beMismissed..-'. ■■■
    
    Error from: District Court, Tulsa - Oo-unty; ÍA-.I;- J...-Holt; ¡Judge. ■■ . ....-.¡¡,
    
      Note. — See under (1) 3 C. J. pp. 1202, § 1284, 1238, § 1341.
    Action between C. A. Sanderson and the Hanchett Bond Company et al. Prom the judgment the former brings error.
    Dismissed.
    Davidson & Williams and Geo. E. Reeves, for plaintiff in error.
    Randolph, Haver & Shirk, for defendants in error.
   PEtR CURIAM.

This case is appealed by plaintiff in error from a judgment rendered against him on the 3rd day of November, 1921, in the district court of Tulsa county. The record fails to show that plaintiff in error gave notice of his intention to appeal as required by section 782, C. O. S. 1921. This is fatal to this appeal. This statute is mandatory and jurisdictional. Crawford v. Shintaffer, 92 Okla. 22, 217 Pac. 867; Atkins v. Lynholm, 87 Okla. 123, 209 Pac. 319; Miller v. Brownfield, 73 Okla. 156, 175 Pac. 211; Holbert v. Patrick, 74 Okla. 290, 176 Pac. 903. The appeal is dismissed.