Bray v. Bray

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Bray v. Bray

105 P. 200, 25 Okla. 71, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 139

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 9, 1909

Docket1068

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 105 P. 200 (Bray v. Bray) 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

Bray v. Bray, 105 P. 200, 25 Okla. 71, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 139 (Okla. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

*72 PER CURIAM.

On January 22, 1909, Vicey- Bray, plaintiff in error, brought suit for divorce against W. W. Bray in the district court of McIntosh' county. After answer and reply filed, a referee took the testimony and made his report to the court. After exceptions filed, the cause came on for trial and was dismissed June 23, 1909, and plaintiff allowed 30 days from that date in which to make and serve a ease-made for this court. On July 26, 1909, . on motion of plaintiff, it was ordered by the court that an extension of 30 days be granted for that purpose, and 10 days allowed defendant in which to suggest amendments. On September 4, 1909, said case-made was served, signed and settled, and filed in this court 4 days later. Defendant in error moves to dismiss this appeal, because said case-made was not so perfected within the time allowed by the first order.

We think the motion should be sustained. The time granted by that order of extension having expired, no power existed in the court or judge then to extend the time for making and serving the case-made, which he did by the order of July 26, 1909. Able v. Blair, 3 Okla. 399, 41 Pac. 342; United States v. Ry. Co., 3 Okla. 409, 41 Pac. 729; Polson v. Purcell, 4 Okla, 93, 46 Pac. 578; Sigman v. Poole, 5 Okla. 677, 49 Pac. 944; Blanchard v. United States, 6 Okla. 587, 52 Pac. 736; Commissioners v. Hubble, 8 Okla. 209, 57 Pac. 163; Noyes v. Tootle, 8 Okla. 505, 58 Pac. 652.

The appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

*72 PER CURIAM.

On January 22, 1909, Vicey- Bray, plaintiff in error, brought suit for divorce against W. W. Bray in the district court of McIntosh' county. After answer and reply filed, a referee took the testimony and made his report to the court. After exceptions filed, the cause came on for trial and was dismissed June 23, 1909, and plaintiff allowed 30 days from that date in which to make and serve a ease-made for this court. On July 26, 1909, . on motion of plaintiff, it was ordered by the court that an extension of 30 days be granted for that purpose, and 10 days allowed defendant in which to suggest amendments. On September 4, 1909, said case-made was served, signed and settled, and filed in this court 4 days later. Defendant in error moves to dismiss this appeal, because said case-made was not so perfected within the time allowed by the first order.

We think the motion should be sustained. The time granted by that order of extension having expired, no power existed in the court or judge then to extend the time for making and serving the case-made, which he did by the order of July 26, 1909. Able v. Blair, 3 Okla. 399, 41 Pac. 342; United States v. Ry. Co., 3 Okla. 409, 41 Pac. 729; Polson v. Purcell, 4 Okla, 93, 46 Pac. 578; Sigman v. Poole, 5 Okla. 677, 49 Pac. 944; Blanchard v. United States, 6 Okla. 587, 52 Pac. 736; Commissioners v. Hubble, 8 Okla. 209, 57 Pac. 163; Noyes v. Tootle, 8 Okla. 505, 58 Pac. 652.

The appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 P. 200, 25 Okla. 71, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bray-v-bray-okla-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack