Title: CHOUTEAU et al. v. CHOUTEAU.
Citation: 106 P. 85 4, 1910 OK 6, 25 Okla. 426
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: January 11, 1910

CHOUTEAU et al. v. CHOUTEAU. Annotate this Case CHOUTEAU et al. v. CHOUTEAU. 1910 OK 6 106 P. 854 25 Okla. 426 Case Number: 872 Decided: 01/11/1910 Supreme Court of Oklahoma CHOUTEAU et al. v. CHOUTEAU. Syllabus ¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Time of Taking Appeal--Ind. Ter. Procedure. Six months was the time within which a writ of error or appeal could be taken subsequent to March 3, 1905, to review a judgment of the United States Court of the Indian Territory in the Court of Appeals of said territory. Error from the United States Court for the Northern District of the Indian Territory; Joseph A. Gill, Judge. Action between John Chouteau and others and Addle Chouteau. From the judgment, John Chouteau and others bring error. Dismissed. George E. McCulloch, for plaintiffs in error. D. H. Wilson, for defendant in error. WILLIAMS, J. ¶1 The order from which the writ of error was sued out was made and entered on the 9th day of May, 1906, and the writ allowed on the 30th day of April, A.D. 1907. ¶2 The defendant in error moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the same was not prosecuted within six months from the time of the rendition of the judgment and the entering of the order sought to be appealed from. This question has been not only by this court, but also by the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory, and of the Eighth Circuit, decided favorably to the contention of the defendant in error. Porter et al. v. Brook, 21 Okla. 885 , 97 P. 645; Moberly v. Roth et al., 23 Okla. 856 , 102 P. 182; Friend et al. v. Roth et al., 23 Okla. 864 , 102 P. 185; Friend et al. v. Roth et al., 23 Okla. 866 , 102 P. 186; Bickford v. Bruce et al., 21 Okla. 892 , 97 P. 648; Utterback v. Rock Island Plow Co., 22 Okla. 263 , 97 P. 649; In re Terrell's Estate, 6 Indian Terr. 412, 98 S.W. 143; Lewis et al. v. Sittle, 7 Indian Terr. 602, 104 S.W. 850; Id., 165 F. 157, 91 C. C. A. 191. ¶3 The appeal is dismissed. ¶4 Kane, C. J., and Dunn and Hayes, JJ., concur; Turner, J., not participating.