Court Opinion

ID: 9790020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:15.580534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:25.729188
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Justice
(concurring specially)-
During pendency of this appeal on rehearing, and before the original opinion became final, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss appeal, asserting, for the first time, that defendants failed to lodge their appeal herein within the time allowed by statute, by reason of which this court was and is without jurisdiction to decide the case on appeal.
The record shows that the trial court, by several orders, extended the time in which to make, serve and settle case-made to July 15, 1958, the date on which the case-made and petition in error were filed in this court, but that the trial court had not extended the time for filing an appeal in this court. Under provisions of 12 O.S. 1951 § 972, that time expired on June 7, 1958, three months after date of the order overruling defendants’ motion for new trial.
In City of Cleveland v. Hambright, Old., 320 P.2d 388, we held that an order of the trial court extending the time to make and serve case-made does not extend the time in which to file an appeal in this court.
We held in Love v. Weeks, Okl., 268 P. 2d 215; East Side Baptist Church v. Morgan, 204 Okl. 685, 233 P.2d 957, and other cases, that where petition in error, with case-made attached, was not filed within three months after order overruling motion for new trial or any order extending time for appeal, the appeal would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of this court to decide the appeal. This is in accord with the general rule. 4A C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 445, 3 Am.Jur. Appeal & Error, Sec. 727.
Defendants do not challenge the record in the instant case, nor the rules of law above-cited. Their sole contentions are that plaintiff waived, or is estopped to raise, the jurisdictional question by failing to assert same prior to rehearing or by previously submitting the appeal on the merits.
It is undoubtedly the general rule, as stated by defendants, and supported by numerous authorities, that questions which were not presented or considered on the original hearing will not be considered on rehearing. That rule, however, is subject to several exceptions. In 5 C.J.S. Appeal & Error § 1421, it is stated:
“ * * * So, points which have been waived on the hearing, either expressly or by implication, will not be considered on a petition for rehearing. This rule will be departed from only in *1055cases where the refusal of the rehearing would work manifest injustice, the circumstances are exceptional, the public interest is involved, the question presented is jurisdictional or involves fundamental error apparent on the ■face of the record, or where the error appearing on the face of the appeal record is brought to the attention of the appellate court before its judgment has become final.” (Emphasis added).
In 3 Am.Jur., Appeal & Error, Section 744, it is said:
“Time for Motion to Dismiss.— * * * However, after the review proceeding has been perfected and filed and docketed in the appellate court, the motion should be made at the first opportunity, since the motion may be denied for laches in moving. This rule does not apply to a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, made at any time prior to a final determination of the proceeding.” (Emphasis added).
In Hirshon v. Whelan, D.C.Mun.App. 1954, 113 A.2d 484, it was held in the second paragraph of the syllabus:
“Notwithstanding general rule that question first raised on motion for rehearing on appeal will not be considered, jurisdictional questions first raised at such time will be considered.”
In West v. Edwards, 1943, 62 Nev. 1, 134 P.2d 932, 139 P.2d 1022, an exception was made to the general rule against granting rehearings on points raised for the first time on petition for rehearing, where such petition questioned jurisdiction of Supreme Court to entertain the appeal.
Defendants’ contention that plaintiff waived or is estopped to .raise .a jurisdictional question for the first time on rehearing is wholly without merit. In Jones v. Norris, 1939, 185 Okl. 125, 90 P.2d 403, we held, in the first and second paragraphs of the syllabus:
“1. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court either by agreement or waiver.
“2. The question of jurisdiction of this court can be raised at any time prior to the issuance of mandate.”
This is in accordance with the weight of authority. 21 C.J.S. Courts § 109. 3 Am. Jur., Appeal & Error, Section 744.
Indeed, we have held that it is the duty of this court, sua sponte, to inquire into its own jurisdiction, whether raised by the parties or not. Biser v. Biser, 176 Okl. 210, 55 P.2d 446; Saunders v. Firestone, 176 Okl. 135, 54 P.2d 1024; Hamilton v. Browder, 176 Okl. 229, 54 P.2d 1025; Myers v. Berry, 3 Okl. 612, 41 P. 580.
For the reasons above-stated, I concur in the opinion of the majority that this court is without jurisdiction to decide this appeal, and that the same should be dismissed.
I am authorized to state that WILLIAMS, V. C. J., and BERRY, J., concur with the views herein expressed.