DUNLAP v. WESTERN OIL STATION CO.

DUNLAP v. WESTERN OIL STATION CO.
1926 OK 86
243 P. 737
116 Okla. 165
Case Number: 15885
Decided: 02/02/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

DUNLAP
v.
WESTERN OIL STATION CO. et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Time for Proceeding--Orders Dissolving Injunction.
In an injunction proceeding, where the trial court dissolves a temporary injunction on motion and after a hearing, the perfecting of proceedings in error to this court within 30 days from the rendition of the order is jurisdictional under Comp. Stat. 1921, sec. 809, and the trial court's order purporting to extend the time beyond that period is a nullity.

Sam Hooker, for plaintiff in error.
John J. Davis, for defendants in error.

LOGSDON, C.

¶1 Order dissolving the temporary injunction in this case was entered by the trial court April 26, 1924, and in the journal entry of said order, there is a further order of the trial court purporting to extend the time for preparing and serving case-made for a period of 90 days from the entry of such order. Thereafter other orders were entered by the trial court further extending the time for making and serving case-made, and the record shows that the case-made was thereafter served October 15, 1924, and that the petition in error was filed in this court October 28, 1924.

¶2 Defendants have filed in this court their motion to dismiss this proceeding, for the reason that the proceeding was not lodged in this court within 30 days after the entry of the order to review which this proceeding in error was commenced, as required to be done by Comp. Stat. 1921, section 809. It appears that on March 17, 1925, this motion of defendants to dismiss was denied by this court by a pro forma order, but at the time of the entry of such order, the cause had not been briefed upon its merits and was not ready for submission. Thereafter the cause was briefed and submitted and in regular order is now ready for disposition.

¶3 The motion to dismiss is well taken and must be sustained. Beginning in territorial days the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma and this court as its successor, without a break in the line of authorities, has uniformly held that the requirement of section 809, Id., mandatory, and that a compliance therewith in this character of proceeding is essential to confer jurisdiction on this court. In the case of Herring et al. v. Wiggins, 7 Okla. 312, 54 P. 483, Justice Burford announced the rule which has been uniformly followed since: