
    BARKER et al. v. HONEYWELL et al.
    No. 9385
    Opinion Filed Dec. 24, 1917.
    (169 Pac. 489.)
    ('Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Petition in Error — Dismissal — Statutes.
    Where the judgment or order brought to this court for review antedates the act of March 23, 1917 (chapter 219, Laws 1917, p. 403), and, although more than six months have since expired, no praecipe for summons has been filed, nor summons served nor issued, nor has there been any waiver of such issuance or service of summons, nor a general appearance made by any defendant in error, a motion to dismiss the petition in error will be sustained.
    Error from District 'Court, Garfield County ; James B. Cullison, Judge.
    Action between Joseph Barker and another and John Honeywell and another, Judgment for the latter, and the former bring error.
    Petition in error dismissed.
    Lytle & Allen and Oai-1 Kruse, for plaintiffs in error.
    McKeever & Moore, for defendants in error.
   THACKER, J.

This ease is before this court upon a motion to dismiss the petition in error. Judgment was rendered by the trial court on' March 5, 1917, and on March 13, 1917, an order was made overruling a motion for- a new trial. A petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this court on August 20; 1917, but no praecipe for summons in error has -been filed nor summons served nor issued, nor has there been any waiver of such issuance 'or service of summons, nor a general appearance made by any defendant in .error, although more than nine months -have elapse® since the order overruling the motion fbr a new trial. Section 1, c. 219, Laws 1917, p. 403, was not effective until March 23, 1917, and is therefore inapplicable. Merriett v. Newton, 67 Okla. 150, 169 Pac. 488; Buckner v. Walton Trust Co., 66 Okla. 240, 168 Pac. 797.

The motion to dismiss is sustained, and the petition in error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.’

All the Justices concur.  