HUTCHINS v. SPERLING

HUTCHINS v. SPERLING
1957 OK 57
316 P.2d 589
Decided: 03/12/1957
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

 
ROBERT L. HUTCHINS, LULA BELLE HUTCHINS, JOHN M. TETENS AND GWEN L. TETENS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
EDGAR M. SPERLING AND OMA V. SPERLING, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR.

Syllabus by the Court

¶0

Appeal from District Court of Comanche County; Toby Morris, Judge.

Action in the nature of ejectment to recover the possession of real property. Defendants cross-petitioned seeking specific performance of an agreement to convey said property. Judgment for the plaintiffs; defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Fletcher S. Riley, Oklahoma City, Jay D. Jones, Duncan, Charles G. Ozmun, Lawton, for plaintiffs in error.

Godlove & Cummins, Ralph H. Cline, Lawton, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

The record reveals that the order overruling the plaintiffs' in error motion for new trial was entered November 30, 1955. The petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this Court May 8, 1956. On January 21, 1956, an order was entered extending the time in which to perfect an appeal until March 1, 1956. Thereafter, on February 27, 1956, a second order was entered extending the time until April 30, 1956, both to make and serve case-made and to file appeal. The case-made, after service and notice, was finally settled on April 23, 1956. No further order extending the time in which to appeal is contained in the case-made.

It is apparent that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case on appeal. The petition in error was not filed within three months from the date of the judgment or final order or within the time granted by an authorized extension of time in which to appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

The Court acknowledges the aid of the Supreme Court Commissioners in the preparation of this opinion. After a tentative opinion was written by Commissioner James H. Nease and approved by Commissioners Jean R. Reed and J.W. Crawford, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this Court for examination and report to the Court. Thereafter, upon report and consideration in Conference, the foregoing opinion was adopted by the Court.

CORN, V.C.J., and HALLEY, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, BLACKBIRD and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

WELCH, C.J., and DAVISON, J., dissent.