Title: WALDOCK v. SINCLAIR
Citation: 1921 OK 370, 201 P. 66 1, 83 Okla. 259
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 1921

WALDOCK v. SINCLAIR Annotate this Case WALDOCK v. SINCLAIR 1921 OK 370 201 P. 661 83 Okla. 259 Case Number: 12184 Decided: 11/01/1921 Supreme Court of Oklahoma WALDOCK et al. v. SINCLAIR. Syllabus ¶0 Appeal and Error--Case-Made--Necessity for Filing in Office of Trial Court Clerk--Dismissed. A case-made filed in this court which does not show that it hag been filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court is a nullity, and where such a case-made remains in this court after the expiration of the statutory time in which to perfect an appeal, on motion the appeal will be dismissed. Error from District Court, McCurtain County; A. C. Brewster, Assigned Judge. Action between A. J. Waldock and others and W. C. Sinclair. From the judgment, the former bring error. Dismissed. A. J. Waldock, for plaintiffs in error. Etheridge & Arnett, for defendant in error. HARRISON, C. J. ¶1 The judgment appealed from herein was rendered in the district court of McCurtain county October 13, 1920. The petition in error and purported case-made were filed in this court April 11, 1921, but the record, on its face, shows not to have been filed with the court clerk after settlement of case-made, but was filed with the clerk of this court without showing to have been filed with the court clerk below. ¶2 On September 6, 1921, defendant in error filed motion to dismiss appeal for the reason, among other reasons assigned, that the petition in error and case-made were not filed in the office of court clerk of the trial court. It is unnecessary to decide the other grounds. ¶3 A case-made filed in this court which does not show that it has been filed in the office of the clerk of the trial court is a nullity, and where such case-made remains in this court after the expiration of the statutory time, six months, in which to perfect an appeal, on proper motion the appeal will be dismissed. Banks et al. v. Watson et al., 40 Okla. 450 , 139 P. 306; Gibbs v. Tanner, 43 Okla. 477 , 143 P. 189. ¶4 The appeal is dismissed.