Case Name: BURCH v. SMITH
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 1923-10-16
Citations: 30 Wyo. 237
Docket Number: No. 1185
Parties: BURCH v. SMITH
Judges: Blume and Kimball, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Wyoming Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
BURCH v. SMITH
(No. 1185,
October 16, 1923;
218 Pac. 791.)
Appeai and Error — Period for Commencing Proceedings in Error —Bill op Exceptions — Dismissal.
1. Proceedings in error not commenced within one year after the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of, will be dismissed.
2. Exceptions to a judgment on the ground that it is unsupported by pleadings are re viewable without the filing and overruling of motion for new trial and a bill of exceptions. The limitation period for commencement of proceedings in error in such ease is computed from the actual date of the rendition of the judgment.
ERROR to the District Court, Fremont County; HoN. C. 0. BrowN, Judge.
HEARD ON MOTION TO DISMISS. NO BRIERS PILED BY EITHER PARTY
M. G. Burk, for plaintiff in error.
0. N. Gibson, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Potter, Chief Justice.
This cause is in this court on error, the petition in error having been filed and summons in error issued on July 20, 1923, and the cause is under advisement without argument or brief upon the motion of defendant in error to dismiss for the reason that the proceeding in error was not commenced within one year after the rendition of the judgment or final order complained of as required, by Section 6384, Comp. Stat. 1920. The petition in error complains of a judgment shown by the record to have been rendered upon the verdict of a jury on June 14, 1922. There appears among the original papers a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that there was no sufficient pleading of the plaintiff to support a judgment upon the verdict or any judgment in plaintiff's favor, and that motion was denied on June 22, 1922, more than one year before the proceeding in error was commenced, even if the statutory period might be held to run from such date. But there is no bill of exceptions, which would be necessary to preserve the exception to the ruling on said motion, and the point is one which could have been considered without the filing and overruling of a motion for a new trial. Therefore the limitation period is to be computed from the actual date of the rendition of the judgment, and as it had expired before the proceeding in error was commenced the motion to dismiss must be sustained. An order of dismissal will be entered accordingly.
NOTE — Headnotes, (1) see Appeal and Error, 3 O. J. Sec. 1074; (2), see Appeal and Error, 3 O. J. See. 870, 1055 and 4 O. J. See. 1786.
Dismissed.
Blume and Kimball, JJ., concur.