TIDAL PIPE LINE CO. v. DAUGHERTY

TIDAL PIPE LINE CO. v. DAUGHERTY
1940 OK 283
103 P.2d 534
187 Okla. 468
Case Number: 29415
Decided: 05/21/1940
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

TIDAL PIPE LINE CO. et al.
v.
DAUGHERTY et al.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Appeal from order dissolving garnishment to be filed within 30 days.
Where an appeal is taken from an order dissolving a garnishment, such an appeal, under section 555, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 983, must be filed in this court within 30 days from date of order, and this rule applies notwithstanding the order to dissolve is entered upon a verdict of a jury or a judgment of the court after trial of the garnishment proceedings upon the merits.

Appeal from District Court, Pawnee County; Prentiss E. Rowe, Judge.

Proceeding in garnishment by the Tidal Pipe Line Company against H. C. Daugherty and Washington National Insurance Company. From order sustaining motion to dissolve, plaintiff appeals. Dismissed.

Pierce & Rucker, of Oklahoma City, and A. M. Covington, of Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.
Harper, Williams & Boesche, of Tulsa, McCollum & McCollum, of Pawnee, and Hamilton & Clendinning, of Tulsa, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This was a proceeding in garnishment against the Washington National Insurance Company, insurance carrier, and H. C. Daugherty. On the 8th day of May, 1939, the district court of Pawnee county, Okla., entered its order sustaining the motion of the Washington National Insurance Company to discharge said garnishment.

¶2 A motion to dismiss has been filed for the reason that the cause was not filed herein within 30 days from the date the order discharging garnishment was entered. The motion must be sustained. This court has many times held that in order to appeal from a motion to discharge the garnishee and the order made thereon discharging the garnishee, said appeal must be taken within 30 days as provided by section 555, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 983. Berry-Beall Dry Goods Co. v. Adams, 87 Okla. 291, 211 P. 79; Phillips v. Button, 126 Okla. 138, 258 P. 879; Security Bldg. & Loan Ass'n of Oklahoma City v. Ward, 174 Okla. 238, 50 P.2d 651; State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. Elam, 161 Okla. 288, 18 P.2d 865; Stumpf v.. Pederson, 171 Okla. 145, 40 P.2d 15.

¶3 The appeal is dismissed.