Case Name: HAMBY v. CARR et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1923-07-10
Citations: 95 Okla. 14
Docket Number: No. 10322
Parties: HAMBY v. CARR et al.
Judges: JOHNSON, C. J., and COCHRAN, BRAN-SON, and MASON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 95
Pages: 14–14

Head Matter:
HAMBY v. CARR et al.
No. 10322
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 h"as 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 J. A. Carr, et al. From the judgment, plaintiff •brings error.
Dismissed.
L. H. Hamby, for plaintiff in error."
Wilson & Roe and Jno. E. Williams, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
KENNAMER, J.
L. H. Hamby, plaintiff, instituted this action in the district court of Tillman county on the 22nd day of October, 1915, against J. A. Carr et al., defendants, to recover damages in the sum of $23,073.75.
It appears from the record that on March, 18, 1918, the court sustained the motion of the defendants to strike certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's petition as being frivolous and irrelevant, and that the plaintiff has attempted to prosecute an appeal from this order of the court sustaining said motion.
Petition in error and case-made were filed in this court on November li, 1918,about seven and one-half months from date of the order complained of in the petition in error.
This court has in numerous eases held that, where the petition in error is not filed in this court until after the expiration of six mqnths from the date of the final judgment or order of the trial court which the appellant seeks to have this court review, 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. 565.
In view of the facts as disclosed by the record in the instant case, it is plain this court is without jurisdiction to review the order complained of, and the appeal is dismissed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and COCHRAN, BRAN-SON, and MASON, JJ., concur.