
    Bickford v. Bruce et al.
    
    No. 916,
    Ind. T.
    Opinion Filed September 10, 1908.
    (97 Pac. 648.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Time of Taking Appeal — Ind. Ter. Procedure, Under Act. Cong. March 3, 1905, c. 1479, sec. 12, 33 Stat. 1081 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 208), providing that appeals and writs of error shall be taken from the United States Courts in the Indian Territory to the United States Court of Appeals of said territory in the same manner that cases are taken by appeal and writ of error from the Circuit Courts of- the United States to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit, a writ of error must be sued out within six months after the entry of the judgment sought to be reviewed.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from, the United- States Court for the Southern District of the Indian Territory, at Marietta; Hosea Townsend, Judge.
    
    Action by H. K. Bickford against Stanley R. Bruce and I. R. Mason. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
    Dismissed.
    This case was tried in the United States Court for the Southern District of the Indian Territory, at Marietta, and judgment rendered therein on October 26, 1906, in favor of defendants in error. A writ of error was sued out and appeal perfected on October 14, 1907. The case was pending in the United States Court of Appeals of the Indian Territory at the time of the admission of the state into the Union, and is now before this court-for final disposition under the provisions of the Enabling Act.
    Gruce, Cruce & Blealcmore and Partner & Simons, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. P. Bowman and Ledbetter & Moore, for defendants in error.
   Hayes, J.

A motion has been filed herein to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the writ of error was not sued out within 6 months from the date of the entry of the judgment in the trial court. Nearly 12 months elapsed from the date of the entry of the judgment in the trial court until the writ of error was sued out, and under the rule announced by this court at the present term in Edward Porter et al. v. Eck E. Brook, ante, p. 885, 97 Pac. 645, the motion should be sustained; and it is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.  