BRIGHAM v. DAVIS

BRIGHAM v. DAVIS
1927 OK 212
258 P. 740
126 Okla. 90
Case Number: 18198
Decided: 07/26/1927
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BRIGHAM et al.
v.
DAVIS et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Dismissal of Appeal Where not Perfected Within Six Months. Where the alleged error of the trial court is presented by the petition in error with transcript attached and such appeal is not lodged in this court within six months from the date of the action of the trial court, this court does not acquire jurisdiction to review the same, and the appeal will be dismissed.
2. Same--Time for Appeal by Transcript not Extended by Motion for New Trial. A motion for new trial and the order of the court overruling the same are no part of the record of the trial court which can be brought to this court by transcript, and the filing of such motion and the making of an order overruling the same do not extend the time in which to file proceedings in this court for review, where the appeal is by transcript.

I. O. Correll, for plaintiffs in error.
Morgan & Morgan, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM

¶1 This is an appeal by petition in error and transcript to this court from the judgment of the trial court rendered on the 14th day of September, 1926. Separate petitions in error are filed by each Homer C. Brigham and the American Investment Company. The assignments of error contained in each of the petitions in error are based upon the action of the trial court occurring on the 14th day of September, 1926, and prior thereto. The appeal was lodged in this court on the 18th day of March, 1927, four days after the expiration of the time allowed by law for the perfecting of such appeal. Section 798, C. O. S. 1921, provides that all proceedings for reversing, vacating, or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced within six months from the rendition of such judgment or final order complained of.

"When the action of the lower court is sought to be reviewed by transcript, the proceedings in error must be commenced in this court within a year (now six months) from the date of judgment order sought to be reviewed. Richardson v. Beidleman et al., 33 Okla. 463, 126 P. 818.

¶2 No motion for new trial was filed by the American Investment Company. On September 20, 1926, plaintiff in error Homer C. Brigham filed in the trial court a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, which motion was on the 22nd day of September, 1926, overruled, and on said day, September 22, 1926, said plaintiff in error, Homer C. Brigham, filed in said cause his motion for new trial, which motion was by the court on the same day overruled.

"A motion for new trial or a motion to vacate an order is not a part of the record brought up by transcript." Richardson v. Beidleman et al., 33 Okla. 463, 126 P. 818.

¶3 This court has often held that:

"Appeals by certified transcript present only such errors as appear on the face of the record, and such record consists of the petition, answer, reply, demurrers, process, orders and judgments, and in order to present errors involving motions, affidavits, evidence, instructions, and other preliminary proceedings, same must be brought into the record by bill of exceptions or case-made." Davis v. DeGeer, 91 Okla. 111, 216 P. 156, and cases cited therein.