From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sudik v. Spaeth

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 3, 1954
276 P.2d 237 (Okla. 1954)

Opinion

No. 36461.

November 3, 1954.

Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County, W.A. Carlile, J.

Renegar Renegar, Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.

Washington, Thompson Wheeler, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.


Plaintiffs brought an action on a contract and on trial to the court the defendants Ervin F. Spaeth et al., moved for a judgment on the pleadings and opening statement of counsel. This motion was granted and judgment entered for defendants as prayed for in the motion.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial and attempt to appeal from the order overruling the same. It is conceded that if the appeal is not properly perfected from the order overruling the motion for new trial the motion should be sustained.

The appeal must be dismissed under the rule announced in Dickson v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co., 174 Okla. 335, 50 P.2d 335. Therein it is stated:

"Where judgment is rendered upon the pleadings and opening statement of counsel, the filing and determination of a motion for new trial serves no purpose to extend the time in which the appeal may be filed past the six months from the rendition of the judgment upon said pleadings and opening statement."

See, also, Koury v. Vogel, 191 Okla. 374, 130 P.2d 93, and cases therein cited.

Appeal dismissed.

HALLEY, C.J., JOHNSON, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, DAVISON, ARNOLD and BLACKBIRD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sudik v. Spaeth

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 3, 1954
276 P.2d 237 (Okla. 1954)
Case details for

Sudik v. Spaeth

Case Details

Full title:HERBERT SUDIK, ZULA MARIE SUDIK, W.T. TUNDERBURK, SURVIVING PARTNER, D/B/A…

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Nov 3, 1954

Citations

276 P.2d 237 (Okla. 1954)
1954 OK 291