Bradley v. Farmers' State Bank

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bradley v. Farmers' State Bank

1915 OK 117, 147 P. 302, 45 Okla. 763, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 558

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 2, 1915

Docket6290

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1915 OK 117 (Bradley v. Farmers' State Bank) 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

Bradley v. Farmers' State Bank, 1915 OK 117, 147 P. 302, 45 Okla. 763, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 558 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARP, J.

Upon the- call of the case for trial in the court below ,the regulan county judge of Sequoyah county made known his -disqualifications to- preside at -the trial, and thereupon it was agreed that Wilson O. Brut-on, a member of the bar of Sequoyah -county should act as special judge. The ease being tried, a verdict wias returned by the jury in favor of the .plaintiff, and defendant on the same day duly moved the court for a new trial. This motion came on to- be heard on November 1, 1913, and, being overruled, the defendant asked and was granted a 90-day extension of time within which to prepare and serve a case-made for appeal. On January 19, 1914, said Wilson O. Bruton, claiming still to -act 'as special county judge, granted tire -defendant 30 days’ -additional time in which to prepare and serve his case-made:, and again, on -the 27th day of February following, made a like order extending the time for 30 days additional. The ease-made was served on the- attorneys for plaintiff March. 28, 1914, or beyond the time fixed in the original order of November 1st. A motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed in this court on the- ground that the oase-miade was not •served within the time originally fixed by the special judge, and ■that ©aid special judge was without authority to- grant an extenIsion -of time after -he had ceased to sit as a judge in said ease. The motion must be sustained. The precise question has been before this court on numerous occasions, and we have uniformly held that, after a -special judge or a judge pro tempore has *765 'ceased to sit 'as a court, be baa no power to extend tbe time for making and serving a, case-made in an action tried before bim; and that, where he does so, his act is a nullity. City of Shawnee v. Farrell, 22 Okla. 652, 98 Pac. 942; Harner v. Goltry & Sons. 23 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111; Casner v. Wooley, 28 Okla. 424, 114 Pac. 700; Murphy v. Favors, 31 Okla. 162, 120 Pac. 641; City of Shawnee v. State Pub. Co., 33 Okla. 363, 125 Pac. 462, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 616; Cantwell v. Patterson et al., 40 Okla. 496, 139 Pac. 517.

Tbe proceeding in error, for tbe reason stated, is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

SHARP, J.

Upon the- call of the case for trial in the court below ,the regulan county judge of Sequoyah county made known his -disqualifications to- preside at -the trial, and thereupon it was agreed that Wilson O. Brut-on, a member of the bar of Sequoyah -county should act as special judge. The ease being tried, a verdict wias returned by the jury in favor of the .plaintiff, and defendant on the same day duly moved the court for a new trial. This motion came on to- be heard on November 1, 1913, and, being overruled, the defendant asked and was granted a 90-day extension of time within which to prepare and serve a case-made for appeal. On January 19, 1914, said Wilson O. Bruton, claiming still to -act 'as special county judge, granted tire -defendant 30 days’ -additional time in which to prepare and serve his case-made:, and again, on -the 27th day of February following, made a like order extending the time for 30 days additional. The ease-made was served on the- attorneys for plaintiff March. 28, 1914, or beyond the time fixed in the original order of November 1st. A motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed in this court on the- ground that the oase-miade was not •served within the time originally fixed by the special judge, and ■that ©aid special judge was without authority to- grant an extenIsion -of time after -he had ceased to sit as a judge in said ease. The motion must be sustained. The precise question has been before this court on numerous occasions, and we have uniformly held that, after a -special judge or a judge pro tempore has *765 'ceased to sit 'as a court, be baa no power to extend tbe time for making and serving a, case-made in an action tried before bim; and that, where he does so, his act is a nullity. City of Shawnee v. Farrell, 22 Okla. 652, 98 Pac. 942; Harner v. Goltry & Sons. 23 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111; Casner v. Wooley, 28 Okla. 424, 114 Pac. 700; Murphy v. Favors, 31 Okla. 162, 120 Pac. 641; City of Shawnee v. State Pub. Co., 33 Okla. 363, 125 Pac. 462, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 616; Cantwell v. Patterson et al., 40 Okla. 496, 139 Pac. 517.

Tbe proceeding in error, for tbe reason stated, is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 117, 147 P. 302, 45 Okla. 763, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-farmers-state-bank-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack