
    Friend et al. v. Roth et al.
    
    No. 296.
    Opinion Filed May 12, 1909.
    (102 Pac. 185.)
    1. COURTS — Supreme Court — Jurisdiction—Appeals from Territorial Courts. Section IS of the enabling act (Act June 16, 1906, c. 3335, 34 Stat. 277) confers upon the Supreme Court of the state just such jurisdiction to review judgments rendered and entered in actions in the United States courts of the Indian Territory prior to the admission of the state from which no appeal had been taken as the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory could have taken if it had not been dissolved by the advent of statehood.
    2. SAME — Time of Taking Appeals'. A judgment in an action in a United States court of the Indian Territory, rendered and entered less than six months before the admission of the state, may be reviewed by this court on appeal taken within six months from the entry of such judgment.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Appeal from, the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory at Tulsa; William R. Lawrence, Judge.
    
    Action by J. A. Friend and others against Nora B. Roth and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal.
    Dismissed.
    P. L. Thurman and Gibson & Ramsey, for appellants.
    
      J. L. Harnage, for appellees..
   Hayes, J.

This is an action in equity brought by appellants in the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory at Tulsa, wherein judgment was rendered by that court on the 23d day of July, 1907, dismissing plaintiffs’ petition. The judgment was on that date entered. On the 17th day of July, 1908, plaintiffs presented to the Honorable Chief Justice of this court their petition praying an appeal from said judgment, which was allowed, and on the 18th day of July, 1908, the transcript' of the record in the case in the trial court was filed in this court. A motion to dismiss has been filed by the defendants upon the ground that it was not brought within the time provided by law in force in the Indian Territory at the time of the rendition and entry of the judgment in the court below.

This question was directly presented to and passed upon by this court in Moberly v. Roth et al. (decided at this term of court), ante, p. 856, 102 Pac. 182, wherein the question was- de-. cided favorably to the contention now made by defendants in their motion.

The reasoning and conclusion of the court in that case is applicable to this case, and the motion to dismiss is therefore sustained.

All the Justices concur.  