BARKER v. HONEYWELL

BARKER v. HONEYWELL
1917 OK 623
169 P. 489
67 Okla. 149
Case Number: 9385
Decided: 12/24/1917
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BARKER et al.
v.
HONEYWELL et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error -- Petition in Error--Dismissal--Statutes.
Where the judgment or order brought to this court for review antedates the act of March 23, 1917 (chapter 219, Laws 1917, p. 403), and, although more than six months have since expired, no praecipe for summons has been filed, nor summons served nor issued, nor has there been any waiver of such issuance or service of summons, nor a general appearance made by any defendant in error, a motion to dismiss the petition in error will be sustained.

Error from District Court, Garfield County; James B. Cullison, Judge.

Action between Joseph Barker and another and John Honeywell and another, Judgment for the latter, and the former bring error. Petition in error dismissed.

Lytle & Allen and Carl Kruse, for plaintiffs in error.
McKeever & Moore, for defendants in error.

THACKER, J.

¶1 This case is before this court upon a motion to dismiss the petition in error. Judgment was rendered by the trial court on March 5, 1917, and on March 13, 1917, an order was made overruling a motion for a new trial. A petition in error with case-made attached was flied in this court on August 20, 1917, but no praecipe for summons in error has been filed nor summons served nor issued, nor has there been any waiver of such issuance or service of summons, nor a general appearance made by any defendant in error, although more than nine months have elapsed since the order overruling the motion for a new trial. Section 1, c. 219, Laws 1917, p. 403, was not effective until March 23, 1917, and is therefore inapplicable. Merriett v. Newton, 67 Okla. 150, 169 P. 488; Buckner v. Walton Trust Co., 66 Okla. 240, 168 P. 797.