Rolater v. Strain

Decision Date14 November 1911
Docket NumberCase Number: 2801
Citation1911 OK 426,119 P. 992,31 Okla. 58
PartiesROLATER v. STRAIN.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR--Statutory Provisions--Retroactive Operation. As a general rule, the right of appeal is governed by the law applicable thereto in force when the final judgment is rendered, and, unless it is evident from the terms of the statute which gives, modifies, or takes away the right of appeal that it was intended to have a retrospective effect, it has no application to causes in which final judgment had been rendered prior to the time the act in question was passed.

2. SAME--Time for Taking Proceedings--Statutory Provisions--Retroactive Operation. The amendment to section 574, c. 66, St. Okla. 1893, provided for in chapter 18, Sess. Laws Okla. 1910-11, p. 35, reducing the time allowed for appeal from a judgment from one year to six months, does not operate, retrospectively, nor apply to judgments entered before its passage, but is limited in its operation to judgments thereafter entered. Therefore proceedings in error taken within one year from the entry of a judgment of a date prior to the passage of such amendment, even though more than six months has expired, will not be dismissed.

Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; G. W. Clark, Judge.

Action by J. B. Rolater against Mattie Inez Strain. From the judgment, Rolater brings error. Motion to dismiss denied.

Flynn, Ames & Chambers and Russell G. Lowe, for plaintiff in error

E. G. McAdams and A. F. Moss, for defendant in error

DUNN, J.

¶1 This case presents error from the district court of Oklahoma county. November 18, 1910, the jury in the trial court returned its verdict, and on December 10, 1910, judgment was duly entered thereon. July 1, 1911, plaintiff in error filed his petition in error and case-made in this court. July 24, 1911, counsel for defendant in error filed their motion to dismiss the appeal, and as ground therefor assert that this court is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause, for the reason that the judgment of the lower court from which the appeal is sought to be taken was rendered and entered on December 10, 1911, and that the cause was not filed in this court until July 1, 1911, six months and 21 days from the rendition of the judgment in the lower court. To support their motion, counsel for defendant in error rely upon the provisions of chapter 18, p. 35, Sess. Laws Okla. 1910-11, which act is amendatory of section 574, c. 66, St. Okla. 1893. The original act, to which the section relied upon is an amendment, provided that proceedings for reversing, vacating, or modifying judgments or final orders should not be begun unless within one year after the rendition of the judgment or making of the final order complained of, etc. The amendment referred to reduces the time so allowed from one year to six months within which such proceedings were required to be begun, and it is the contention of the counsel that, in view of the fact that this judgment was rendered more than six months prior to the time when the proceedings for reversing it were begun in this court, it was brought too late, and hence no jurisdiction exists to entertain the same. In this contention we are unable to agree. Counsel for neither party have briefed the proposition involved, and, although as a general rule this court renders no opinion where motion to dismiss is denied, the importance of this question and the likelihood of its recurrence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State ex rel. Osage Cnty. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Worten
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1933
    ...held that the confirmation of sale prior to the expiration of the twelve months period was ineffective and void. ¶13 In Rolater v. Strain, 31 Okla. 58, 119 P. 992, the judgment had been rendered while the statute providing one year for appeal was in force, and after the judgment was rendere......
  • Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Bunce
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 13, 1935
    ... ... 10 C. J. 1042; ... Melde v. Reynolds, (Cal.) 52 P. 491; Pignaz v ... Burnett, (Cal.) 51 P. 48; Bell v. Bearman, ... (Okla.) 133 P. 188; Rolater v. Strain, 119 P ... 992; Wilson v. Kryger, (N. D.) 143 N.W. 764; ... Cook v. Massey, (Ida.) 35 A. L. R. 200. An amendment ... or repeal of a ... ...
  • Cook v. Massey
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1923
    ... ... it has no application to causes in which final judgment has ... been rendered prior to the time the act in question was ... passed." ( Rolater v. Strain , 31 Okla. 58, 119 ... "In ... construing statutes with reference to such effect, Sutherland ... on Statutory Construction ... ...
  • Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. Blevins
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1913
    ...421, 14 L. Ed. 755; N.Y. & O. M. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 57 N.Y. 473; McEwen et al. v. Den et al., 24 HOW 242, 16 L. Ed. 672; Rolater v. Strain, 31 Okla. 58, 119 P. 992; Good et al. v. Keel et al., 29 Okla. 325, 116 P. 777. ¶7 The cases of MaHarry v. Eatman, 29 Okla. 46, 116 P. 935, and Harris ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT