Case Name: HUNTER v. HUGHES et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1920-01-06
Citations: 77 Okla. 81
Docket Number: No. 10508
Parties: HUNTER v. HUGHES et al.
Judges: RAINEY, PITCHFORD, JOHNSON, MC-NEILL and HIGGINS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 81–81

Head Matter:
HUNTER v. HUGHES et al.
No. 10508
Opinion Filed Jan. 6, 1920.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal and Error — Notice of Appeal — Statute.
Section 5238, Rev. Laws Okla. 1910, as amended by Act March 23, 1917 (Laws 1917, c. 219, section 1), is mandatory, and, among other thiings, provides that: “The party desiring to appeal shall give notice in open court, either at the time the judgment is rendered, or within ten day thereafter, of his intentions to appeal to the Supreme Court.”
Error from District Court, Creek County; M. L. Bozarth, Judge,
Action between Charlotte Hunter and Gordon C. Hughes and others. From the judgment, Hunter brings error.
Dismissed.
I. H. Spears, for plaintiff in error.
Ernest B. Hughes, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
OWEN, C. J.
On motion to dismiss it appears there was no notice given of the intention to appeal, as provided by chapter 219, Sess. L. 1917, repealing section 5238, Rev. Laws 1910. That portion of the chapter providing:
" and the party desiring to appeal shall give notice in open court, either at the time the judgment is rendered, or within ten days thereafter,, of his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court"
• — was held to be mandatory in the case of Cates v. Miles, 67 Oklahoma, 169 Pac. 888, and under the authority of that case the motion to dismiss must be sustained.
The motion is therefore sustained, and the appeal dismissed.
RAINEY, PITCHFORD, JOHNSON, MC-NEILL and HIGGINS, JJ., concur.