Joiner v. Goldsmith
Decision Date | 08 March 1910 |
Citation | 107 P. 733,25 Okla. 840,1910 OK 77 |
Parties | JOINER v. GOLDSMITH. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Snyder's Comp. Laws Okl. § 5827, requiring a motion for a new trial to be filed within three days after verdict, is mandatory; and in the absence of a showing that the party filing it has been unavoidably prevented from filing it within the time specified in said statute, this court cannot consider it or review the errors occurring on the trial. Held further, that the trial court has no power to grant an extension beyond the time specified.
Error from Carter County Court; I. R. Mason, Judge.
Action by J. Goldsmith against C. M. Join er. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
W. D Bibbs, for plaintiff in error.
J. W Harreld, for defendant in error.
On November 30, 1907, J. Goldsmith, defendant in error, as plaintiff, sued C. M. Joiner, plaintiff in error, in the county court of Carter county, as indorser on a certain promissory note, dated Ardmore, I. T., April 13, 1907, made by F. D. Johnson and T. S. Ross, payable to L. C. Pollard for $300, and by him indorsed to plaintiff. After amended answer and reply filed, there was trial by jury which, on March 16, 1906, resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff and against defendant for said sum, with interest and cost. On March 20, 1908, or four days later, defendant filed motion for a new trial, which was overruled. Defendant brings the case here, and assigns for error that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. But we cannot consider it, for the reason that the motion was filed out of time. Snyder's Comp. Laws Okl. § 5827, requiring that the motion be filed within three days after the verdict, is mandatory; and, in the absence of a showing that the party filing it has been unavoidably prevented from filing it within the time specified by the statute, this court cannot consider it or review the error occurring upon the trial. U.S. ex rel. v. C., O. & G. R. R. Co., 3 Okl. 404, 41 P. 729; Ryland v. Coyle et al., 7 Okl. 226, 54 P. 456, citing: McNally v. Keplinger, 37 Kan. 556, 15 P. 534; Pratt v. Kelley, 24 Kan. 111; Norris v. Evans, 39 Kan. 668, 18 P. 818; Boswell, Adm'r, v. Bliler, 9 Wyo. 277, 62 P. 350; Schofield, Receiver, v. Slaughter; 9 N.M. 422, 54 P. 757. No such showing was made or attempted.
In Nebraska National Bank v. Pennock, 59 Neb. 61, 80 N.W. 255, the court construed a statute identical in terms to the section supra. The court said:
But it might be contended that the court extended the time for filing the motion. On this point the record discloses, by an independent recital in the case-made, on the day the verdict was rendered, "that defendant's counsel gave notice of filing the motion for a new trial, and leave of court was granted till the evidence could be transcribed to file written motion for new trial." This the court had no right to do. The statute is not only mandatory, but leaves no discretion in the court with respect to the time of its filing. In Bank v. Porter, 148 Mo. 176, 49 S.W. 982 Rev. St. 1889, § 2243, was under construction, and provided: "All motions for new trials and in arrest of judgment shall be made within four days after the trial, if the term shall so long continue; and if not, then before the end of the term." A motion to amend the motion for a new trial filed in time, so as to show newly discovered evidence material to the issues, accompanied with affidavit that it was no fault of the plaintiff that its officers did not know of it and introduce it on the trial, etc., was filed after the four days had expired and within the term, but overruled by the trial court. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause. On appeal the Supreme Court declared the statute mandatory, with no discretion in the trial court with respect to the time of filing such motions, and in passing said: "Nor does it make any exceptions upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, or anything else which may occur or be discovered after the expiration of the time fixed thereby in which the motion is required to be filed. The merit of such a motion with respect to its filing has nothing to do with it. Whether meritorious or otherwise, it must be filed within the prescribed time (State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542 ; Maloney v. Railroad, 122 Mo. 106 ; City of St. Joseph v. Robison, 125 Mo. 1 )--"and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with directions to enter up judgment affirming the judgment of the circuit court. Bank v. Bennett, 138 Mo. 494, 40 S.W. 97. In State v. Dusenberry, 112 Mo. 277, 20 S.W. 461, defendant asked leave to file an amended motion for a new trial after the expiration of four days allowed by law for filing such motion. The court refused permission, and it was held no error. In McDonald v. McAllister, 32 Neb. 514, 49 N.W. 377, the court said: In Frazier v. Judge of Record's Court, 112 Mich. 469, 70 N.W. 1042, one Dale was, on May 18, 1896, convicted of a felony, and sentenced on January 18, 1897. His attorney filed a motion for a new trial which,...
To continue reading
Request your trial