Rogers v. Rogers, No. 5003 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Opinion Filed May 20, 1913)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an error proceeding seeking review of a trial-court judgment granting a divorce. The caption indicates the action was "by Della Rogers against Robert H. Rogers," with a judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant bringing error. The opinion states the proceeding in error was commenced to review the trial court's grant of a divorce in favor of the defendant in error in an action "wherein the defendant in error was plaintiff and the plaintiff in error was defendant."

The record shows the defendant in error moved to dismiss the proceeding in error on the ground that the plaintiff in error failed to file, in the clerk's office of the trial court within ten days after the trial, a written notice of intention to appeal, as required by section 5971, Rev. Laws 1910. The error was taken from the District Court of Muskogee County, R. C. Allen, Judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether this court has jurisdiction to review, by a proceeding in error, a trial-court judgment granting a divorce when the plaintiff in error did not file in the trial-court clerk's office within ten days after trial a written notice of intention to appeal, as required by section 5971, Rev. Laws 1910.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant in Error's Arguments

• The defendant in error moved to dismiss the proceeding in error on the ground that the plaintiff in error failed to file a written notice of intention to appeal in the clerk's office of the trial court within ten days after the trial, as required by section 5971, Rev. Laws 1910.
• On that basis, the defendant in error argued that this court lacked jurisdiction to review the trial court's grant of the divorce.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the plaintiff in error's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court summarized the procedural posture: the present proceeding in error sought review of a trial court's grant of a divorce. The defendant in error moved to dismiss because the plaintiff in error had not filed, in the trial-court clerk's office within ten days after the trial, a written notice of intention to appeal as required by section 5971, Rev. Laws 1910.

The court then stated the controlling legal principle, citing La Due v. La Due and Orcutt v. Orcutt: unless such a notice is filed, the action of the trial court in granting a divorce cannot be reviewed by proceeding in error. The court characterized the statutory requirement as mandatory and concluded that compliance is necessary for this court to acquire jurisdiction of such a proceeding in error.

Applying that principle to the facts before it (the absence of a timely filed written notice of intention to appeal in the clerk's office), the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the divorce judgment and therefore dismissed the proceeding in error.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The proceeding in error is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the plaintiff in error failed to file the written notice of intention to appeal in the clerk's office within ten days as required by section 5971, Rev. Laws 1910.

Implications: The direct effect is dismissal of the error proceeding and no review of the trial court's divorce judgment by this court. The opinion treats the ten-day filing requirement as mandatory and jurisdictional; the court applied existing precedent (La Due and Orcutt) to reach this result. The opinion does not state that it establishes a new precedent beyond applying the cited authorities.

All the Justices concurred.