Case Name: SCHAFER et al. v. REMMERS et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1914-11-10
Citations: 47 Okla. 250
Docket Number: No. 3776
Parties: SCHAFER et al. v. REMMERS et al.
Judges: The appeal is dismissed. All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., absent and not participating, and DUNN, J., who dissents.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 47
Pages: 250–252

Head Matter:
SCHAFER et al. v. REMMERS et al.
No. 3776.
Opinion Filed November 10, 1914.
Rehearing Denied April 27, 1915.
(148 Pac. 841.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Jurisdiction—Summons in Error — Failure to Issue — 'Waiver. Where a petition in error and case-made are filed in due time, but no summons in error is issued nor praecipe therefor filed until after the time limited for appeal has expired, a stipulation purporting to waive the issuance and service of summons in error, signed prior to the expiration of such time, but filed thereafter, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from District Court, Canadian County; John J. Carney, Judge.
Action by Henry Schafer and H. C. Paulsen against E. G. Remmers and. others: From the judgment, the parties first mentioned bring error.
Appeal dismissed.
R. B. Forrest and Thomas R. Reid, for plaintiffs in error.
John H. Shirk and Burwell, Crockett & Johnson, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
KANE, J.
This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by the defendants in error, upon the ground that the proceeding in error was not commenced in this court within the time limited by law. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. It seems that the petition in error and case-made were filed in due time, but no praecipe for summons in error or waiver of same was filed until after the expiration of the six months allowed by law within which a proceeding in error must be commenced. All of this is admitted by counsel for plaintiffs in error, but they contend that the issuance and service of summons in error was waived by one of the defendants in error who is united in interest with each of the other defendants in error, and therefore the action was commenced in time, and they cite First State Bank of Davidson v. Clingan et al., 26 Okla. 150, 109 Pac. 69, as an authority. We do not think that case is in point. It is true that one of the defendants in error in the instant case signed what purported to be a waiver of issuance and service of summons in error within the time limited for taking an appeal, but the same was not filed in the cause until a considerable time after the time for taking the appeal had expired. As the waiver was not filed until after the time for commencing a proceeding in error had expired, it was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court.
The appeal is dismissed. All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., absent and not participating, and DUNN, J., who dissents.
LOOFBOURROW, J.
The above opinion, by Chief Justice KANE, dismissing the appeal, was filed September 11, 1912. This opinion seems to have been set aside and petition for rehearing granted. After a thorough examination of the authorities, we are convinced that the petition for rehearing was improperly granted, that the above opinion is correct, and that the appeal must be dismissed.
KANE, C. J., and TURNER and BLEAKMORE, JJ., concur.