From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stumpf v. Pederson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jan 14, 1935
40 P.2d 15 (Okla. 1935)

Opinion

No. 25595.

January 14, 1935.

(Syllabus.)

Appeal and Error — Time for Filing Appeal From Order Discharging or Modifying Attachment.

An appeal from an order discharging or modifying an attachment must be filed in this court within 30 days from the date on which the order appealed from was made, and if not so filed, this court acquires no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from such order.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas; L.V. Reid, Judge.

Action by J.M. Stumpf against Lucy Pederson and another upon a contract. From an order of the court dissolving an attachment, plaintiff appeals. The appeal as to the order discharging the attachment dismissed, and denied as to the motion to dismiss the appeal.

R.F. Barry and Joe P. Crawford, for plaintiff in error.

W.P. Morrison, for defendants in error.


This action was originally instituted December 13, 1933, before Joe E. Deupree, a justice of the peace for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma county, Okla. An attachment was had on certain personal property, and after an appeal to the court of common pleas, the defendants below filed their motion to discharge the attachment, and on the 10th day of February, 1934, the court dissolved the order of attachment issued. The justice of the peace court held that the justice of peace court did not have jurisdiction of the person of defendants, and dismissed the cause, and upon the same theory discharged the attachment. A motion for new trial was afterwards filed and the appeal taken from the order of the court dismissing the cause, but the petition in error with case-made attached was not filed herein until May 23, 1934, more than 30 days after the court had dissolved the order of attachment.

This court has repeatedly held that in order to appeal from an order dissolving an attachment, it is necessary to file the petition in error, together with the case-made, in this court within 30 days from the date of the order dissolving the attachment. Otherwise, the court is absolutely without jurisdiction to hear the error complained of in dissolving or discharging the writ of attachment. Jones v. Nelson, 139 Okla. 198, 281 P. 792. In that case the court dismissed the appeal in so far as it affected the order vacating or discharging the writ of attachment, and afterwards heard the case upon the main appeal. Jones v. Nelson, 156 Okla. 236, 10 P.2d 408.

To the effect on the general rule of the construction under section 555, O. S. 1931, see Kennedy Mercantile Co. v. Dobson, 40 Okla. 306, 138 P. 147; Farmers' Merchants' Bank v. Cox, 40 Okla. 307, 138 P. 148; First National Bank v. Chowning, 95 Okla. 137, 218 P. 676; Mitchner v. City Commissioners, 100 Okla. 98, 228 P. 159.

The appeal as to the order discharging the attachment is dismissed and denied as to the motion to dismiss the appeal.


Summaries of

Stumpf v. Pederson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Jan 14, 1935
40 P.2d 15 (Okla. 1935)
Case details for

Stumpf v. Pederson

Case Details

Full title:STUMPF v. PEDERSON et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Jan 14, 1935

Citations

40 P.2d 15 (Okla. 1935)
171 Okla. 145

Citing Cases

Tidal Pipe Line Co. v. Daugherty

The motion must be sustained. This court has many times held that in order to appeal from a motion to…

Stumpf v. Pederson

On December 13, 1933, while they were in Oklahoma City to appear before the Tax Commission, pursuant to a…