Case Name: EDMONDSON et al. v. JONES
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-03-12
Citations: 31 Okla. 449
Docket Number: No. 3467
Parties: EDMONDSON et al. v. JONES.
Judges: TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and DUNN, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
EDMONDSON et al. v. JONES.
No. 3467.
Opinion Filed March 12, 1912.
(122 Pac. 152.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Dismissal—Motion for New Trial. As the questions for review are such that it would require a motion for a new trial in order to examine them, and no motion for a new trial was filed within the time prescribed by law, the motion to dismiss must be sustained.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from District Courtt Oklahoma County; W. R. Taylor, Ju$ge.
Action between J. D. Edmondson and another and G. H. Jones. From the judgment, Edmondson and another bring error.
Dismissed.
E. S'. Bessey and Berstein & Spiers,, for plaintiffs in error.
Wright & Blinn, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
KANE, J.
This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, filed by the defendant in error, upon the ground, among others, that the verdict of the jury and the judgment, of the court was made and entered on the 16th day of October, 1911, and the motion for a new trial in said cause was not filed until the 20th day of October, 1911; the filing of same being four days after the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court was entered.
As the questions for review are such that it would require a motion for a new trial in order to examine them, and no motion for a new trial was filed within the time prescribed by law, the motion to dismiss must be sustained.
TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and DUNN, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.