# Tishomingo Electric Light & Power Co. v. Harris

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · January 10, 1911 · 28 Okla. 10

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3823615

## Case

- **Full name:** Tishomingo Electric Light and Power Co. v. Harris
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** January 10, 1911
- **Citations:** 28 Okla. 10; 113 P. 713; 1911 OK 58; 1911 Okla. LEXIS 71
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Dunn
- **Judges:** Dunn
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3823615

## Opinion text

DUNN, C. J.
This case presents error from the district court of Johnston county. June 11, 1909, a verdict was returned by a jury for plaintiff, on which the court rendered judgment. Within the statutory time defendant filed a motion for new trial, which, on June 14, 1909, was by the court denied. June
29, 1910,
petition in error and case-made were lodged in this court, in which review of the judgment and order of the trial court denying the defendant a new trial is sought. A motion to dismiss the proceeding on the ground that the same has not been commenced in this court within one year after the rendition of the judgment or the final order complained of has been filed, which must be sustained.
Section 6082, Comp. Laws of Okla. 1909, provides:
“No proceeding for reversing, vacating or modifying judgments or final orders shall be commenced unless within one year after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of, or in case the person entitled to such proceeding be an infant, a person of unsound mind, or imprisoned, within one year as aforesaid, exclusive of the time of such disability.”
This statute has, by this court and by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma, on numerous occasions, been held mandatory.
Keokuk Falls Imp. Co. et al. v. Beale,
4 Okla. 712 , 47 Pac. 481 ;
Blanchard v. United States,
6 Okla. 587 , 52 Pac. 736 ;
Vandervoort v. Board of Com’rs,
8 Okla. 227 , 57 Pac. 167 ;
Hoffman v. Board of Com'rs,
8 Okla. 225 , 57 Pac. 167 ;
Sumner et al. v. Sherwood,
25 Okla. 70 , 105 Pac. 642 .
More than one year having elapsed between the rendition of the judgment and order complained of in this action and the filing of the petition in error and case-made in this court, we are with
*12
out jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
All the Justices concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3823615. Public record. Not legal advice.