Bond v. Cook

1911 OK 76, 114 P. 723, 28 Okla. 446, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 121
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedMarch 21, 1911
Docket737
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 1911 OK 76 (Bond v. Cook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bond v. Cook, 1911 OK 76, 114 P. 723, 28 Okla. 446, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 121 (Okla. 1911).

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

On the 31st day of January, A. D. 1909, by motion of the plaintiffs (defendants in error), the appeal from the justice, court was dismissed, and the cause remanded to said court, to be proceeded with the same as if no appeal had been taken. On January 22, 1909, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial. On February 6, 1909, said motion was overruled, at which time the court allowed plaintiffs 60 days to make and serve case-made, 10 days for amendments, and 5 days for settling same.

It is urged that, as the motion for a new trial was not necessary, the case-made should have been settled within three days from the dismissal of the appeal, or the order extending the time *447 therefor should have been made within such time. This contention seems to be correct. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Gish, Brook & Co., 23 Okla. 824, 102 Pac. 708.

In Powell et al. v. Nichols, 26 Okla. 734, 110 Pac. 762, it was held by this court that the filing and determining of a motion for a new trial of a contested question of fact, not arising upon the pleadings, but upon a motion, is unnecessary to authorize this court to review the order made upon such hearing. As the question sought to be reviewed in this case could only be preserved by a case-made, or a bill of exceptions, it is not properly before this court.

The proceeding in error must be dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ball v. Lynch
1926 OK 626 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Ginn v. Knight
1924 OK 806 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Oxford v. State
1920 OK 355 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
McDonell v. Continental Supply Co.
1920 OK 294 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1920)
Chestnut v. Overholser
1919 OK 233 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1919)
McLaughlin v. Shaw
1917 OK 251 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Burton v. De Bolt
1915 OK 494 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Robe v. Fullerton-Stuart Lumber Co.
1915 OK 473 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Owen v. District Court of Oklahoma County
1914 OK 281 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Missouri, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. McClellan
1913 OK 182 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Williamson v. Adams
1912 OK 237 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1911 OK 76, 114 P. 723, 28 Okla. 446, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bond-v-cook-okla-1911.