Title: CORNISH v. SANDERS
Citation: 132 Okla. 296, 1928 OK 555, 270 P. 56 3
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 25, 1928

CORNISH v. SANDERS Annotate this Case CORNISH v. SANDERS 1928 OK 555 270 P. 563 132 Okla. 296 Case Number: 19578 Decided: 09/25/1928 Supreme Court of Oklahoma CORNISH et al. v. SANDERS. Syllabus ¶0 Appeal and Error--New Trial--Statutory Provision as to Time of Filing Motion Mandatory. Section 574, C. O. S. 1921, requiring a motion for new trial to be filed within three days after verdict, is mandatory; and, in the absence of a showing that the party filing it has been unavoidably prevented from filing it within the time specified in said statute, this court cannot consider it, or review the errors occurring at the trial. Philbrock v. Home Drilling Co., 117 Okla. 266, 246 P. 457. W. R. Banker, for plaintiffs in error. Bruce L. Keenan, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. ¶1 This is an appeal from the judgment rendered in the district court of Cherokee county, on the 21st day of December, 1927. Motion for new trial was filed on January 4, 1928, which motion was by the court overruled February 6, 1928. The defendant in error has filed herein his motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason the motion for new trial was not filed within the time required by section 574, C. O. S. 1921, which is as follows: "The application for a new trial must be made at the term the verdict, report or decision is rendered, and, except for the cause of newly discovered evidence, material for the party applying, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, or impossibility of making a case-made, shall be within three days after the verdict or decision was rendered, unless unavoidably prevented." ¶2 The motion for new trial filed in the court below does not assign as grounds therefor any newly discovered evidence, or impossibility of making case-made, nor is there any showing set forth therein that the plaintiffs in error were unavoidably prevented from filing this motion within the time prescribed by the above section. The record is silent as to whether or not any evidence was introduced showing the plaintiffs in error were unavoidably prevented from filing said motion within the time, and the court made no finding thereon, as shown by the order overruling the motion for new trial. In the case of Philbrock v. Home Drilling Co., 117 Okla. 266, 246 P. 457, the court laid down the rule as follows: "Section 574, C. O. S. 1921, requiring a motion for new trial to be filed within three days after verdict, is mandatory; and, in the absence of a showing that the party filing it has been unavoidable prevented from filing it within the time specified in said statute, this court cannot consider it or review the errors occurring at the trial." ¶3 The court in that case follows the rule laid down in the cases of Bowers v. Cheever, Adm'r, 95 Okla. 71, 218 P. 698; Ronne v. Hirsh, 71 Okla. 311 , 178 P. 88, and Ewert v. Wills, 72 Okla. 23 , 178 P. 87. See, also, the case of Roberts v. Seals, 43 Okla. 467 , 143 P. 199, and Farmers' Grain & Supply Co. v. Isaac, 60 Okla. 26 , 158 P. 562. ¶4 The plaintiffs in error in their response to the motion to dismiss call our attention to the cases of Riely v. Robertson, 29 Okla. 181 , 115 P. 877 , and Aetna Building & Loan Ass'n v. Smith, 73 Okla. 83 , 175 P. 833. In the case of Riley v. Robertson, supra, the court in the opinion said: "Obviously the trial court found as a fact that the plaintiff in error was unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for a new trial at the term at which the verdict was returned, and for that reason he refused to strike the motion from the files. We are not prepared to say that he erred, as there was evidence reasonably tending to show the unavoidable prevention of its filing within time."