From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Feb 11, 1913
130 P. 138 (Okla. 1913)

Opinion

No. 4706

Opinion Filed February 11, 1913.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Review by Transcript — Time of Taking — Writ. When a judgment of the lower court is sought to be reviewed by transcript, the proceeding in error must be commenced in this court within six months from the date of its rendition.

2. SAME — Record — Motion for New Trial. A motion for a new trial is not a part of the record brought up by a transcript.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Oklahoma County Court; John W. Hayson, Judge.

Action between J. H. Schollmeyer and Jacob Van Buskirk. From the judgment, Schollmeyer brings error. Dismissed.

John Shirk and H. L. Danner, for plaintiff in error.

Grant Stanley, for defendant in error.


This proceeding in error seeks to review, by means of a transcript, a judgment rendered in the trial court on May 24, 1912.

A proceeding in error, commenced in this court after the expiration of six months from the rendering of said judgment or the overruling of a motion for a new trial, must be dismissed.

The action of the lower court in overruling a motion for a new trial is not brought to this court by means of a transcript. Richardson et vir v. Beidleman et al., 33 Okla. 463, 126 P. 816, 818.

The proceeding in error must be dismissed.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Feb 11, 1913
130 P. 138 (Okla. 1913)
Case details for

Schollmeyer v. Van Buskirk

Case Details

Full title:SCHOLLMEYER v. VAN BUSKIRK

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Feb 11, 1913

Citations

130 P. 138 (Okla. 1913)
130 P. 138

Citing Cases

Ham v. Veasey

Section 4452, St. 1893 (section 5255, Rev. Laws 1910), as amended by Act Feb. 14, 1911 (Sess. Laws 1910-11.…

Blackmon v. Reid

The record does not show that a motion for new trial was filed and passed upon, although the purported…