Title: WARD v. MCCLAIN
Citation: 118 P.2d 1028, 189 Okla. 597, 1941 OK 369
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 4, 1941

WARD v. MCCLAIN Annotate this Case WARD v. MCCLAIN 1941 OK 369 118 P.2d 1028 189 Okla. 597 Case Number: 30116 Decided: 11/04/1941 Supreme Court of Oklahoma WARD v. McCLAIN Syllabus ¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Dismissal of appeal where proceedings not commenced within six months required by law. Proceedings on appeal to this court must be commenced within six months from the rendition of final judgment or order complained of, and, when not so commenced, this court is without jurisdiction to review the order or judgment appealed from, and the appeal will be dismissed. Appeal from District Court, Le Flore County; Wm. S. Hall, Judge. Motion by Herbert Z. Ward to modify judgment in divorce action in favor of Goldie Ward McClain. From an adverse order, the former appeals. Dismissed. Babb & Babb, of Poteau, for plaintiff in error. A. G. Windham, of Poteau, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. ¶1 Plaintiff in error appeals from an order on a proceeding in contempt in which he attempts to modify a former order in a divorce proceeding. The matter was disposed of by the final order of the court on March 25, 1940, and the case-made was not filed herein until November 2, 1940. ¶2 It was apparently the theory of the plaintiff in error that the filing and determination of a motion for new trial, on which the final order was entered May 3, 1940, extended the time in which to file the petition in error in this court. Such is not the rule. See Powell v. Nichols, 26 Okla. 734 , 110 P. 762, 29 L. R. A., N. S., 886; Barfield Petroleum Co. v. Pickering Lumber Co., 137 Okla. 151 , 278 P. 391; Fliedner v. Hinchee, 157 Okla. 90 , 11 P.2d 110 ; Hoppe v. Bentley, 170 Okla. 377, 40 P.2d 678 . ¶3 A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the petition in error and case-made were not filed within six months as required by law. The filing and determination of a motion for new trial did not extend the time in which to perfect the appeal. ¶4 The appeal is dismissed. ¶5 WELCH, C. J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, GIBSON, and HURST, JJ., concur. CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., absent.