Buck's Stove & Range Co. v. Davidson

79 P. 119, 70 Kan. 885, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 66
Supreme Court of Kansas·Decided January 7, 1905·No. No. 13,848·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The defendant in error moves to dismiss this proceeding because there is here no legal case-made, the same not having been served in time.

The time was extended to August 10,1903. This required the service to be made before the expiration of the 9th of August. (Croco v. Hille, 66 Kan. 512, 72 Pac. 208; The State v. Dyck, 68 id. 558, 75 Pac. 488; Maynes v. Gray, 69 id. 49, 76 Pac. 443.)

However, August 9,1903, fell on Sunday, and it is urged that the time for service was thereby extended by virtue of section 722 of the code of civil procedure (Gen. Stat. 1901, §5218), which reads as follows :

“'The time within which an act is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last; if the last day be Sunday, it shall be excluded.”

[886]*886It was held in Croco v. Hille, supra, that this section did not apply to a case like this, and that the time of service was not thereby extended. We see no reason for changing the rule there laid down.

Finding ourselves without jurisdiction, we are compelled to dismiss this proceeding.

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

Buck's Stove & Range Co. v. Davidson, 79 P. 119, 70 Kan. 885, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 66 (kan 1905).

79 P. 119 (Buck's Stove & Range Co. v. Davidson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barnes v. Gideon
578 P.2d 685 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1978)
Barnes v. Gideon
571 P.2d 42 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1977)
Long v. Brown
1939 OK 360 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Day v. Hartness
1922 OK 34 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)