Lobell v. Stock Oil Company
| Decision Date | 25 April 1911 |
| Docket Number | 668 |
| Citation | 19 Wyo. 170,115 P. 69 |
| Parties | LOBELL v. STOCK OIL COMPANY |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
ERROR to District Court, Natrona County.
Heard on motion to dismiss.
Motion to dismiss granted and proceedings in error dismissed.
Norton & Hagens, for defendants in error. (On motion to dismiss.)
Every act required to perfect an appeal must be completed during the statutory time allowed for taking the appeal, viz: filing the petition in error, precipe for summons in error, and application for an order for the original papers and transcript; and the summons must be served and returned and the transcript filed within this time, or the case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (Green v. City, 87 F. 839; City v. Coler, 92 F. 284; Cody v Filley, 4 Colo. 436; Moe v. Harger, (Ida.) 77 P. 645; Wright v. Manns, (Ind.) 12 N.E. 160; Young v. Moss, 4 Ky. L. R. 449; Wood v Calloway, 21 La. Ann. 481; R. R. Co. v. Ambach, 55 O. St. 553; Snider v. Young, 72 O. St. 494; Lott v. Ry. Co., 4 O. C. D. 9; Barton v. Bank, 14 O. Cir 450; Wedd v. Gates, (Okl.) 82 P. 808.) The authorities are uniform to the effect that two appeals in the same case between the same parties cannot be pending in the same court at the same time, and that in such event the last appeal should be dismissied. (American &c. Co. v Perrine, (Fla.) 24 So. 484; DaCosta v. Dibble, (Fla.) 33 So. 466; Newbury v. Getchell &c. Co., (Ia.) 76 N.W. 514; Swortfiguer v. White, (Cal.) 66 P. 80; Rowland v. Fite, (Ga.) 34 S.E. 212; Dunbar v. T. & T. Co., (Ill.) 72 N.E. 904; Burdett v. Dale, (Mo.) 69 S.W. 480; Smith v. Flick, (Mo.) 83 S.W. 73; Kehler v. Walls, (Mo.) 94 S.W. 760; Dunlap v. Weber &c. Co., (Mo.) 94 S.W. 761; Collins v. Gladiator &c. Co., (S. D.) 103 N.W. 385.) When an order of dismissal is entered in the Supreme Court it operates as a decree of affirmance, which cannot be opened by a new proceeding. (Horton v. Peacock, 1 Wyo. 57.)
William H. Martz and Frederick J. Lobell, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff in error, contra.
The first ground of the motion, viz: that the proceeding in error was not commenced within one year after the rendition of the judgment cannot be maintained. The judgment was entered January 28, 1910, and the petition in error was filed January 25, 1911, within the year allowed for commencing the proceeding in error. With reference to the second ground of the motion, to-wit: that none of the original papers or journal entries have been transmitted to this court, the files and records in the office of the clerk of this court will show the filing of a motion on January 25, 1911, for an order for all the necessary papers and transcript. It is no part of the duty of the plaintiff in error to file the record in this court, for it is made the duty of the clerk of the district court to transmit upon the order issued. If the clerk fails to do that the plaintiff in error is not chargeable with his neglect. The statute does not fix a time in which the precipe for summons in error must be filed or in which the summons must issue. It must be admitted that this court upon its own motion, or upon the motion of the defendant in error, may rule the plaintiff in error to file his precipe and cause the summons to issue, in order to speed the case. Plaintiff in error has now filed his precipe for summons and does now offer to cause summons to be issued thereon. We contend that this question cannot be raised by the defendant in error upon this motion to dismiss, but that the same must be raised by a motion to compel the plaintiff in error to file his precipe and cause summons to be issued. The jurisdiction of this court attached upon the filing of the petition in error. The briefs in the case were filed March 25, 1911, which was within the time required by the rule; and on March 22, 1911, a copy of the brief was sent to the attorneys for the defendant in error. We therefore insist that the plaintiff in error has complied fully with the rule of the court as to filing and service of briefs.
Although a former petition in error was filed in this court, the same was dismissed, and the plaintiff had under the statute one year from the date of the rendition of the final judgment in the court below to file his petition in error, and he could file as many petitions in error as might seem proper, and dismiss the same within the year. At this time there is pending in this court only this proceeding with regard to the subject matter thereof. The defendant in his motion admits all the facts with reference to the dismissal of the former petition in error, and the motion to dismiss on the ground of the pendency of two proceedings in error cannot be maintained.
SCOTT, J., did not sit.
This case is before the court at this time on the motion of defendant in error to dismiss the proceeding in error for the reason that the same was not commenced within the time allowed by law. The judgment of the District Court became final January 28, 1910, on which date the motion for a new trial was denied. The petition in error was filed in this court January 26, 1911, but no precipe for summons was filed until April 8, 1911, nor was any summons issued prior to that date. The motion to dismiss was filed March 29, 1911.
The statutes governing the question presented by the motion are as follows: Comp. St. 1910, Sec. 5109. "A judgment rendered or final order made by the District Court, may be reversed, vacated or modified by the Supreme Court, for errors appearing on the record." Sec. 5111. "The proceedings to obtain such reversal, vacation, or modification, shall be by petition in error, filed in a court having power to make the reversal, vacation or modification, and setting forth the errors complained of; thereupon a summons shall issue and be served, or publication made, as in the commencement of an action, and a service on the attorney of record in the original case shall be sufficient;" etc.
Sec. 5112. "The summons mentioned in the last section shall, upon the written precipe of the plaintiff in error or his attorney, be issued by the clerk of the court in which the petition is filed, to the sheriff of any county in which the defendant in error, or his attorney of record is found;" etc.
Sec. 5122. "No proceeding to reverse, vacate, or modify a judgment or final order shall be commenced unless within one year after the rendition of the judgment, or the making of the final order complained of;" etc.
The statutes with reference to the commencement of an action are as follows: Sec. 4351. "A civil action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Water Rights In Big Laramie River
...to be issued where the issuance and service of summons in error have not been waived. (Foree v. State, 14 Wyo. 296, 83 P. 596; Lobell v. Stock Oil Co., supra; Federal and Development Co. v. Petroleum Maatschappij Salt Creek, 19 Wyo. 354, 115 P. 1135; In Re Big Laramie River, supra.) "The ge......
-
North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman
...The jurisdiction of this court is invoked by filing a petition in error and praecipe for summons. (Section 4422 Comp. Stats; Lobell v. Oil Co., 19 Wyo. 170). application to amend comes too late, (Gibbons v. Scott, 19 Cal. 284; Warner v. Godfrey, 186 U.S. 365-377; Behannon v. Clark, (Ky.) 78......
-
State ex rel. Poston v. District Court of Eighth Judicial District, Fremont County
...of a complaint under oath; process as provided by statute is necessary to confer jurisdiction, Caldwell v. State, 12 Wyo. 206, Lobell v. Co., 19 Wyo. 170; In Big Laramie River, 23 Wyo. 459; the statute 6831 C. S. requires the issuance and service of a citation, if it did not, Section 6735 C......
-
In re Big Laramie River
...Conradt v. Lepper, 13 Wyo. 99, 78 P. 1; 3 Ann. Cas. 627; Toltec Live Stock Co. v. Gillespie, 20 Wyo. 314, 123 P. 413; Lobell v. Stock Oil Co., 19 Wyo. 170, 115 P. 69.) The statute does not, however, what shall constitute the commencement of such a proceeding within the meaning of the provis......