Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Okla. 449

122 P 152

Edmondson v. Jones

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided March 12, 1912

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · decided 1912-03-12

<p> Error from District Courtt Oklahoma County; W. R. Taylor, Ju$ge. </p> <p>Action between J. D. Edmondson and another and G. H. Jones. From the judgment, Edmondson and another bring error.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently October 1932

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““As the questions for review are such that it would require a motion for a new trial in order to examine them, and no motion for a new trial was filed within the time prescribed by law, the motion to dismiss must be sustained.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Hastings v. Donnell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed · Decided 1912-03-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*450 KANE, J.

¶1 This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, filed by the defendant in error, upon the ground, among others, that the verdict of the jury and the judgment, of the court was made and entered on the 16th day of October, 1911, and the motion for a new trial in said cause was not filed until the 20th day of October, 1911; the filing of same being four days after the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court was entered.

¶2 ■ As the questions for review are such that it would require a motion for a new trial in order to examine them, and no motion for a new trial was filed within the time prescribed by law, the motion to dismiss must be sustained.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and DUNN, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.
/31/okla/449 · .json · Public domain