Brown-Beane Co. v. Rucker

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Brown-Beane Co. v. Rucker

1912 OK 487, 130 P. 1075, 36 Okla. 696, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 941

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 18, 1912

Docket3535

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1912 OK 487 (Brown-Beane Co. v. Rucker) 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

Brown-Beane Co. v. Rucker, 1912 OK 487, 130 P. 1075, 36 Okla. 696, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 941 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

BREWER, C.

This cause is appealed from the district court of Rogers county, and is brought for the purpose of reviewing an order of said court wherein it denied a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction and by order continued the same in full force and effect pending the final hearing of the cause.

The petition in error herein was filed in this court January 24, 1912, and on April 25, 1912, the defendants in error filed their motion to strike the case-made from the files and to dis-. miss the appeal. One of the reasons assigned for dismissing the appeal is:

“Because said case-made shows that it was not served upon the defendants in error within the time fixed by the order of the court.”

The motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained upon the above ground.

From the case-made it appears that the order and judgment of the court complained of was rendered on December 26, 1911, and further shows that on said date the plaintiffs in error were allowed ten days in which to make and serve case-made for appeal to the Supreme Court. The case-made appears to have been served on the defendants in error on January 6, 1912. The date of the service of the case-made as stated, is shown by the certificate of the attorney for plaintiffs in error, and also by an acceptance of service by the attorneys for defendants in error; the record fails to show any order of the court further extending the time.

*698 Therefore it follows that the case-made was not served within the ten days allowed by the order of the court. This is jurisdictional; and for the reasons stated, following the decisions of this court, the case-made is a nullity, and the appeal should be dismissed. Haynes et al. v. Smith, 29 Okla. 703, 119 Pac. 246; Thompson et al. v. Fulton, 29 Okla. 700, 119 Pac. 244; Devault et al. v. Merchants’ Exchange Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436; Bray v. Bray, 25 Okla. 71, 105 Pac. 200; Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388; Lankford v. Wallace, 26 Okla. 857, 110 Pac. 672.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

BREWER, C.

This cause is appealed from the district court of Rogers county, and is brought for the purpose of reviewing an order of said court wherein it denied a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction and by order continued the same in full force and effect pending the final hearing of the cause.

The petition in error herein was filed in this court January 24, 1912, and on April 25, 1912, the defendants in error filed their motion to strike the case-made from the files and to dis-. miss the appeal. One of the reasons assigned for dismissing the appeal is:

“Because said case-made shows that it was not served upon the defendants in error within the time fixed by the order of the court.”

The motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained upon the above ground.

From the case-made it appears that the order and judgment of the court complained of was rendered on December 26, 1911, and further shows that on said date the plaintiffs in error were allowed ten days in which to make and serve case-made for appeal to the Supreme Court. The case-made appears to have been served on the defendants in error on January 6, 1912. The date of the service of the case-made as stated, is shown by the certificate of the attorney for plaintiffs in error, and also by an acceptance of service by the attorneys for defendants in error; the record fails to show any order of the court further extending the time.

*698 Therefore it follows that the case-made was not served within the ten days allowed by the order of the court. This is jurisdictional; and for the reasons stated, following the decisions of this court, the case-made is a nullity, and the appeal should be dismissed. Haynes et al. v. Smith, 29 Okla. 703, 119 Pac. 246; Thompson et al. v. Fulton, 29 Okla. 700, 119 Pac. 244; Devault et al. v. Merchants’ Exchange Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436; Bray v. Bray, 25 Okla. 71, 105 Pac. 200; Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388; Lankford v. Wallace, 26 Okla. 857, 110 Pac. 672.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 487, 130 P. 1075, 36 Okla. 696, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-beane-co-v-rucker-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack