Case Name: DAWSON & SCHREINER v. DAVIS BROS. CHEESE COMPANY
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1916-03-14
Citations: 53 Okla. 313
Docket Number: No. 7805
Parties: DAWSON & SCHREINER v. DAVIS BROS. CHEESE COMPANY.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
DAWSON & SCHREINER v. DAVIS BROS. CHEESE COMPANY.
No. 7805.
Opinion Filed March 14, 1916.
(156 Pac. 204.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Petition in Error — Time for1 Filing — Dismissal. Where more than six months 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 Court, Pittsburg County; R. W. Higgins, Judge.
Action by the Davis Bros. Cheese Company, a partnership composed of Horace G. Davis and another, against Dawson & Schreiner, a partnership composed of Allen T. Dawson and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.
Dismissed.
Counts & Counts, for plaintiffs in error.
I. P. Keith, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendants in error brought tliis action against plaintiffs in error to recover on account for goods, wares, and merchandise the sum of $1,090.85. Plaintiffs in error were duly served with summons, but filed no answer. Thereafter, on the 17th day of February, 1915, the cause came on for trial, and judgment was rendered against plaintiffs in error on default for the amount sued for.
Defendants in error have moved to dismiss this appeal, for the reason, among others, thaLthis court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this cause, since the appeal was not perfected within the time provided by law. As above stated, judgment was rendered on default against plaintiffs in error on the 17th day of February, 1915. The petition in error, with transcript attached, was not filed in this court until November 3, 1915, more than six months from the date of the rendition of the judgment sought to be reyiewed. Therefore the motion to dismiss is well taken, and upon the authority of Caswell v. Eaton, 43 Okla. 718, 144 Pac. 591; Honley v. First Nat. Bank, 35 Okla. 649, 130 Pac. 945, and Thorne v. Harris, 35 Okla. 645, 130 Pac. 906, the appeal is dismissed.
All the Justices concur.