Case Name: HAMBY v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1923-07-10
Citations: 95 Okla. 13
Docket Number: No. 10323
Parties: HAMBY v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE.
Judges: JOHNSON, C. J., and COCHRAN, BRAN-SON, and MASON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 13–14

Head Matter:
HAMBY v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE.
No. 10323
Opinion Filed July 10, 1923.
Rehearing Denied July 24, 1923.
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Time for Proceedings— Dismissal.
Where the petition in error is not filed in this court until after the expiration of six months from the date of the final judgment or .order of the trial court which the appellant seeks to have reviewed, this court has no jurisdiction to review such judgment or order, and the appeal will be dismissed.
Error from District Court, Tillman County; Frank Mathews, Judge.
Action by L. H. Hamby against the National Bank of Commerce. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Appeal dismissed.
L. H. Hamby, for plaintiff in error.
Wilson & Roe, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
KENNAMER, J.
L. H. Hamby, plaintiff, commenced this action in the district court of Tillman county on the 23rd day of October, 1915, against the National Bank of Commerce, defendant, to recover damage? in the sum of $45,149.0S.
The defendant filed a démíirrer to the plaintiff's petition, and the court, on the 15th day of December, 1917, entered an order sustaining the general demurrer of the defendant to the plaintiff's petition. The plaintiff elected to stand upon his petition as filed and excepted to the ruling of the court, and by this appeal seeks to have the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer reviewed. The petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on November 1, 191S, about 11 months from the date the court entered its order sustaining the demurrer.
The court has repeatedly held that, where the petition in error is not filed in this court until after the expiration of' six months from the date of the final judgment or order of the trial court which the appellant seeks to have ¡reviewed, this court has no jurisdiction to review such judgment or order, and the appeal will be dismissed. Davis v. Revelle, 75 Okla. 8, 180 Pac. 958; Williams v. Thompson, 68 Okla. 301, 174 Pac. 268; Olentine v. Anderson, 71 Oklahoma, 176 Pac. 82; Drake v. Ruble, 71 Oklahoma, 176 Pac. 920; Perry v. Werline, 77 Okla. 92, 186 Pac. 940; First State Bank of Warner v. Porter, 63 Okla. 79, 182 Pac. 672; Star Mill & Elevator Company v. Bruce, 77 Okla. 113, 186 Pac. 940; Ham v. Veasey, 79 Okla. 133, 191 Pac. 1094; Wagnon v. Davison, 79 Okla. 209, 192 Pac. 265.
It is clear from the facts, as disclosed by the record in the instant case, that the appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
JOHNSON, C. J., and COCHRAN, BRAN-SON, and MASON, JJ., concur.