Bond v. Watson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bond v. Watson

1913 OK 165, 130 P. 933, 35 Okla. 648, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 136

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 11, 1913

Docket4508

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK 165 (Bond v. Watson) 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. Watson, 1913 OK 165, 130 P. 933, 35 Okla. 648, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 136 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, J.

This cause conies on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground, among others, that “the judgment in the trial court from which this appeal is prosecuted *649 was rendered on the 8th day of May, 1912, and the plaintiffs in ■error were given 90 days’ extension of time in which to prepare and serve case-made upon the defendants in error, and the plaintiffs in error failed to serve case-made upon these defendants in error within said 90 days, but, without notice to these defendants in error, they did, on the 8th day of August, 1912, secure an order from the trial judge extending the time 60 days from the 8th day of August, 1912; but at the time said extension was ■granted the 90 days previously granted had expired, and the ■order of the court entered on the 8th day of August, 1912, being after the 90 days had expired, rendered all extensions of time a nullity.” This is a sufficient ground for dismissal.

The motion to dismiss must therefore be sustained.

WILLIAMS, DUNN, and TURNER, JJ., concur; HAYES, C. J., absent, and not participating.

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

KANE, J.

This cause conies on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal, upon the ground, among others, that “the judgment in the trial court from which this appeal is prosecuted *649 was rendered on the 8th day of May, 1912, and the plaintiffs in ■error were given 90 days’ extension of time in which to prepare and serve case-made upon the defendants in error, and the plaintiffs in error failed to serve case-made upon these defendants in error within said 90 days, but, without notice to these defendants in error, they did, on the 8th day of August, 1912, secure an order from the trial judge extending the time 60 days from the 8th day of August, 1912; but at the time said extension was ■granted the 90 days previously granted had expired, and the ■order of the court entered on the 8th day of August, 1912, being after the 90 days had expired, rendered all extensions of time a nullity.” This is a sufficient ground for dismissal.

The motion to dismiss must therefore be sustained.

WILLIAMS, DUNN, and TURNER, JJ., concur; HAYES, C. J., absent, and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 165, 130 P. 933, 35 Okla. 648, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bond-v-watson-okla-1913.