Case Name: MERRIETT et al. v. NEWTON et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1917-12-24
Citations: 67 Okla. 150
Docket Number: No. 9397
Parties: MERRIETT et al. v. NEWTON et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 150–150

Head Matter:
MERRIETT et al. v. NEWTON et al.
No. 9397
Opinion Filed Dec. 24, 1917.
(169 Pac. 488.)
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Right of Appeal — Notice —Statutes.
The right of appeal is governed by the law applicable thereto at-the time the judgment appealed from is rendered. Hence it’ is held that section 1, chapter 219, of the 1917 Session Laws, with reference to giving notice of appeal, is not applicable to an appeal from a judgment rendered March 1, 1917, since that law did not become effective until March- 23, 1917.
Error from District Court, McCurtain County; C. E. Dudley, Judge.
Action between L. M. Merriett and others and R. C. Newton and others. Judgment for the latter, and the former bring error.
Appeal dismissed.
H. ¡Gka'dy Ross and Geo. T. Arnett, for plaintiffs in error.
Head & Barrett, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
BRETT, J.
The defendants in error move to dismiss the appeal in this case, for the reason ¡that no summons in error from the Supreme Court was issued and served as required by law.
The facts are: That the- order overruling the motion for new trial was made and entered March 1, 1917. The plaintiffs in .error at -that time gave notice of appeal in open court, which would be sufficient under section 1, chapter 219, 1917 Session Laws. But that- law did mot become effective until March 23, 1917, or 22 days after 'the order appealed from was made. And it is the holding of this court ¡that the right of appeal is governed by the provisions of the law applicable thereto at the time the judgment appealed from -is rendered. Oklahoma Land Co. v. Thomas, 43 Okla. 217, 142 Pac. 801. Ahd under the precise conditions involved in this case in Buckner v. Walton Trust Co., 67 Okla. —, 168 Pac. 797, the court held that in the absence of a summons in error, an appeal taken from a judgment rendered January 4, 1917, could'"'not be deemed to have been commenced in this court so as to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of the appeal."
Hence, since the law in force at ¡the time the order appealed from has not been complied with, and the 1917 act is not retroactive,' the appeal must be dismissed.
All the Justices concur.