This statute has consistently been held mandatory and jurisdictional. LaDue v. LaDue, 23 Okla. 323, 100 P. 513; Orcutt, v. Orcutt, 25 Okla. 855, 108 P. 373; Rogers v. Rogers, 38 Okla. 195, 132 P. 473; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 94 Okla. 114, 221 P. 109; Butler v. Butler, 124 Okla. 245, 255 P. 580. Defendant insists, however, that at the time of overruling the motion for new trial the clerk made the following minute on the minute journal of said court:

This court has frequently held that the filing of such notice is necessary to give this court jurisdiction, and without the notice being filed within ten days after judgment no jurisdiction is acquired by this court. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 94 Okla. 114, 221 P. 109; Vogt v. Vogt, 91 Okla. 272, 217 P. 192; Milam v. Milam, 76 Okla. 62, 184 P. 442; Linkugel v. Linkugel, 74 Okla. 298, 183 P. 55; Rogers v. Rogers, 38 Okla. 195, 132 P. 476; Orcutt v. Orcutt, 25 Okla. 855, 108 P. 373. Plaintiff in error gave notice of appeal in open court as provided in section 782, C. O. S. 1921, but in the case of Reynolds v. Reynolds it is held that section 510, supra, was not repealed by chapter 219, Session Laws 1917, section 782, supra. Since the opinion in the case of Reynolds v. Reynolds, supra, was written, the Legislature has amended section 510, supra (Session Laws 1925, chapter 119), and the same was under consideration by the Legislature, and the provisions in this section as to notice of appeal were re-enacted, thereby showing the intention of the Legislature to require written notice of appeal from a judgment of divorce to be filed with the clerk of the trial court within ten days after the rendition of such judgment.

The defendant in error moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that no notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the court within ten days after the judgment was rendered and was not appealed within four months from the date of the rendition of judgment. Plaintiff in error gave the notice of appeal required by chapter 219, Session Laws 1917, but did not file with the clerk of the court the notice required by the divorce statute, section 510, Comp. Stat. 1921 (4971, Rev. Laws 1910), until January 12, 1922, more than three months after the motion for new trial was overruled. It has been held by this court in Orcut v. Orcut, 25 Okla. 855, 108 P. 373; Rogers v. Rogers, 38 Okla. 195, 132 P. 476; Milam v. Milam, 76 Okla. 62, 184 P. 442; Linkugel v. Linkugel, 74 Oklahoma, 183 P. 55, and Vogt v. Vogt, 91 Okla. 272, 217 P. 192, that the notice required by section 510, Comp. Stat. 1921 (sec. 4971, Rev. Laws 1910), is jurisdictional. In Lewis v. Lewis, 39 Okla. 407, 135 P. 397, Montgomery v. Montgomery, 41 Okla. 581, 139 P. 288, and Howell v. Howell, 42 Okla. 286, 141 P. 412, this court held that such notice was required only where it is sought to appeal from a judgment granting a divorce and not where the appeal is prosecuted from an order awarding alimony or making a division of property in divorce proceedings.

It further appears by the motion to dismiss that no written notice of intention to appeal was filed in the office of the court clerk of Woodward county, Okla., within ten days after the rendition of such judgment, and no response having been filed to said motion or amended motion to dismiss, in the absence of the record, this court will consider the allegations of said motion and amended motion to dismiss as confessed. Both the written notice of intention to appeal and the perfecting of such appeal within four months from the rendition of a decree in a divorce action are jurisdictional. Linkugel v. Linkugel, 74 Oklahoma, 183 P. 55; Milam v. Milam, 76 Okla. 62, 184 P. 442; Rogers v. Rogers, 38 Okla. 195, 132 P. 476; Orcutt v. Orcutt, 25 Okla. 855, 108 P. 373. For the reasons stated, and upon the authorities above cited, the appeal herein should be dismissed.