SCOTT v. BAILEY

SCOTT v. BAILEY
1945 OK 80
156 P.2d 625
195 Okla. 199
Case Number: 31986
Decided: 03/06/1945
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

SCOTT
v.
BAILEY

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR-Time for appeal not extended by unnecessary motion for new trial in proceeding to confirm sale.
The filing and determination of a motion for new trial is unnecessary to review the errors alleged to have occurred in sustaining or overruling a motion to confirm sale, and a petition in error and case-made which is not filed in this court until after six months from the date of the order entered by the trial court is filed too late, and a proceeding on appeal based thereon will be dismissed.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Oras A. Shaw, Judge.

Action to quiet title by C. W. Bailey against Elsie Scott et al. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant named appeals. Dismissed.

F. E. Riddle, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
G. G. Hilford and John W. McCune, both of Tulsa, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 On April 8, 1944, the trial court entered an order approving and confirming sheriff's sale. Plaintiff in error then filed a motion for new trial on April 10, 1944, and this motion was overruled on April 15, 1944. It is apparent that the plaintiff in error attempted to appeal from the order of April 15, 1944, and thereafter filed in this court the petition in error with case-made attached on October 11, 1944.

¶2 A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the appeal is not taken within six months from April 8, 1944, and therefore the court is without jurisdiction of the appeal.

¶3 The appeal must be dismissed. Grimes v. Ward, 179 Okla. 5, 64 P.2d 894; Powell v. Nichols, 26 Okla. 734, 110 P. 762.

¶4 The appeal is dismissed.

¶5 HURST, V.C.J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, CORN, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.