Hansing v. Hansing

7 Citing cases

  1. Blair v. District Ct. of Okl. Cty

    594 P.2d 367 (Okla. 1979)   Cited 9 times
    In Blair v. District Court of Oklahoma County, Okla., 594 P.2d 367, 369 [1979] we held that "... an appeal in a divorce action does not deprive trial courts... of judicial power to consider an application for alimony pendente lite concurrent and co-ordinate with this Court, where that issue is ancillary to the matters involved in the appeal."

    Compare, Pleasant v. Allen Brothers, 180 Okla. 518, 71 P.2d 114 (1937), holding that the trial court may entertain a petition for new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence notwithstanding that appeal from judgment is pending in Supreme Court because the issues are different from those involved in the appeal. Our research has revealed three decisions which could be construed as inconsistent with our holding: Scott v. Scott, 203 Okla. 60, 218 P.2d 373 (1950); Hansing v. Hansing, 76 Okla. 34, 183 P. 978 (1919); and, Spradling v. Spradling, 74 Okla. 276, 181 P. 148 (1919). To the extent that these or any other decisions appear inconsistent with our decision, they are disapproved.

  2. Scott v. Scott

    203 Okla. 60 (Okla. 1950)   Cited 9 times

    The Supreme Court has the right to make such an order after the appeal is filed here. Hansing v. Hansing, 76 Okla. 34, 183 P. 978; Spradling v. Spradling, 74 Okla. 276, 181 P. 148. In our opinion, there is no sound reason, as long as the case has not been appealed to the Supreme Court, why the trial court cannot make an order for alimony pendente lite in such sum as will be reasonable under the circumstances.

  3. Martin v. Martin

    212 P. 310 (Okla. 1923)

    The order of the court must be treated as a reasonable order and failure to comply therewith is ground for dismissal of the appeal. Adhering to the rule laid down in Spradling v. Spradling, 74 Oklahoma, 181 P. 148, and Hansing v. Hansing, 76 Okla. 34, 183 P. 978, the appeal is dismissed.

  4. Moody v. Moody

    207 P. 973 (Okla. 1922)   Cited 1 times

    On May 16, 1922, a copy of said motion was served upon the attorney of record for plaintiff in error and service duly acknowledged by him, and he was also served with a notice that the defendant in error would file said motion in the Supreme Court on the 17th day of May, 1922, and ask this court to dismiss said appeal because the plaintiff in error had failed to comply with the order of the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding the plaintiff in error was duly served with the notice and copy of motion and a month has elapsed since the service thereof, yet he has failed and neglected to respond in any way or show any valid reason why said motion should not be sustained. Therefore, under the authority of Norman v. Norman, 86 Okla. 201, 29 P. 950, and Hansing v. Hansing, 76 Okla. 34, 183 P. 978, and cases cited in each of said opinions, the motion should be sustained and this appeal dismissed. An examination of the record shows that the plaintiff in error filed a supersedeas bond in the sum of $300 to abide by the judgment of this court, a copy of which appears as a part of the case-made, with John Hutchinson and Ed. L. Anderson as sureties.

  5. Weber v. Weber

    206 P. 823 (Okla. 1922)

    Plaintiff in error has failed to comply with this order, and has failed to make a sufficient showing for not so doing, and is in contempt. The defendant in error moves the court to dismiss the appeal on authority of Spradling v. Spradling, 74 Oklahoma, 181 P. 148, and Hansing v. Hansing, 76 Okla. 34, 183 P. 978. Upon authority of the above cases, the appeal is dismissed.

  6. ENT v. LEE

    199 P. 208 (Okla. 1921)

    This court has in hand power to enforce any reasonable, proper, and lawful order by proper and lawful means, and where plaintiff in error has failed without excuse to comply with an order of this court and by his petition in error seeks an affirmative relief at the hands of this court, such failure to comply with an order will support a motion to dismiss a proceeding in error. Hood v Hancock, 80 Okla. 59, 193 P. 980; Hansing v. Hansing, 76 Okla. 34, 183 P. 978; Spradling v. Spradling, 74 Oklahoma, 181 P. 148. On May 19, 1921, motion to dismiss was filed by defendants in error for failure of plaintiff in error to comply with the court's order.

  7. Hood v. Hancock

    193 P. 979 (Okla. 1920)   Cited 1 times

    * * * This court has been at all times open to plaintiff in error for consideration of his appeal when he complied with its orders properly made in the progress thereof; but he may not rightfully insist upon an award of affirmative relief while willfully disregarding the rules of practice, reasonable orders, and methods of procedure made and adopted by this court." Hansing v. Hansing, 76 Okla. 34, 183 P. 978. This court has inherent power to enforce any reasonable and lawful order by proper and lawful means, and while punishment for contempt may in a proper case be resorted to, yet, when a plaintiff in error has failed without excuse to comply with a proper order of this court, and by his petition in error is seeking affirmative relief at the hands of this court, such action will support a motion to dismiss the proceedings in error.