Case Name: FAIRBANKS-MORSE & CO. v. THURMOND et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-03-12
Citations: 31 Okla. 612
Docket Number: No. 1490
Parties: FAIRBANKS-MORSE & CO. v. THURMOND et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
FAIRBANKS-MORSE & CO. v. THURMOND et al.
No. 1490.
Opinion Filed March 12, 1912.
(122 Pac. 167.)
APPEAL'AND ERROR — Jurisdiction—Time for Filing Petition. Where more than one year has intervened between the rendition of the final order sought to be reviewed and the filing of the petition in error in the Supreme Court, this court has no jurisdiction to review such final order.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from District Co%irt, Beckham County; G. A. Brown, Judge.
Action between Fairbanks-Morse & Co. and the First National Bank of Elk City, in which I. C. Thurmond intervened. From the judgment, Fairbanks-Morse. & Co. brings error.
Dismissed.
S. P. For see and M. Martindale, for plaintiff in erroi.
Echols & Merrill, for defendants in error. '

Opinion:
DUNN, J.
This case presents error from the district court of Beckham county. The judgment herein was rendered on •March 11, 1909; thereafter a motion for a new,trial was filed, which was denied on March 12, 1909. The case-made was duly served within the extended time allowed for the making and serving thereof; but the petition in error was not filed in this court until April 15, 1910, or more than a month after the expiration of the year allowed under the statute for the filing of proceedings in error herein.
Section 6082, Comp. Laws 1909, provides:
"No proceeding for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced unless within one year after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of. "
This is jurisdictional; and where, as in this case, more than one year is permitted to elapse, this court is without authority to review the action of the trial court. Tishomingo Electric Light & Power Co. v. Harris, 28 Okla. 10, 113 Pac. 713, and cases therein cited.
The proceeding in error is therefore dismissed.
All the Justices concur.