Brittain v. Lorett

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Brittain v. Lorett

1922 OK 33, 204 P. 433, 85 Okla. 49, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 24

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 7, 1922

Docket11788

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 1922 OK 33 (Brittain v. Lorett) 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

Brittain v. Lorett, 1922 OK 33, 204 P. 433, 85 Okla. 49, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 24 (Okla. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

This case is presented on the motion of the defendants in error to dismiss the appeal. It .appears from the record that the motion for a new trial was overruled on the 11th day of May, 1920, and the defendants were granted 30 days from that date within which to make and serve a case-made, the plaintiffs were granted ten days thereafter within which to suggest amendments, ‘ said, case-made to be signed and settled on five days’ notice by either party. The case-made was not served within the time allowed, and on June 14, -1920, the court made an order granting the defendants 90 days in addition to the time theretofore granted within which to make and serve said case-made. This latter order was invalid because made after the expiration of the time originally granted. The trial court was without jurisdiction to grant an extension on June 14, 1920, and the case cannot be considered by this court. Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King, 76 Okla. 316, 185 Pac. 439; Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 222, 192 Pac. 215.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and JOHNSON, McNEILL, and ELTINO, JJ., concur.

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

NICHOLSON, J.

This case is presented on the motion of the defendants in error to dismiss the appeal. It .appears from the record that the motion for a new trial was overruled on the 11th day of May, 1920, and the defendants were granted 30 days from that date within which to make and serve a case-made, the plaintiffs were granted ten days thereafter within which to suggest amendments, ‘ said, case-made to be signed and settled on five days’ notice by either party. The case-made was not served within the time allowed, and on June 14, -1920, the court made an order granting the defendants 90 days in addition to the time theretofore granted within which to make and serve said case-made. This latter order was invalid because made after the expiration of the time originally granted. The trial court was without jurisdiction to grant an extension on June 14, 1920, and the case cannot be considered by this court. Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King, 76 Okla. 316, 185 Pac. 439; Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 222, 192 Pac. 215.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and JOHNSON, McNEILL, and ELTINO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1922 OK 33, 204 P. 433, 85 Okla. 49, 1922 Okla. LEXIS 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brittain-v-lorett-okla-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack