Campbell v. Ruble

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Campbell v. Ruble

1913 OK 579, 135 P. 1050, 40 Okla. 48, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 10

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 14, 1913

Docket4612

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 1913 OK 579 (Campbell v. Ruble) 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

Campbell v. Ruble, 1913 OK 579, 135 P. 1050, 40 Okla. 48, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 10 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The question involved in this case is raised by a motion to dismiss filed by defendant in error. The record shows that on June 14, 1912, in the cause below, the motion for a new trial was overruled and final judgment entered by the -trial court and the defendant given 60 days from that date within which to prepare and serve a case-made; that on August 14, 1912, an order was entered extending the time for preparing and serving case-made an additional 60 days. The CO days originally granted within which to make and serve a case-made expired on August 13, 1912; thereafter the court was *49 without jurisdiction to grant a further extension for that purpose. Comp. Laws 1909, sec. 6258 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 5341), provided:

“* * * 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.”

The 13th day of August, 1912, was Tuesday, and therefore should not be excluded. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. See Maddox v. Drake, 27 Okla. 418, 112 Pac. 969; Korimer v. Collins, 31 Okla. 457, 122 Pac. 159; De Vault et al. v. Merchants’ Exchange Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342.

Dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating. ■

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

PER CURIAM.

The question involved in this case is raised by a motion to dismiss filed by defendant in error. The record shows that on June 14, 1912, in the cause below, the motion for a new trial was overruled and final judgment entered by the -trial court and the defendant given 60 days from that date within which to prepare and serve a case-made; that on August 14, 1912, an order was entered extending the time for preparing and serving case-made an additional 60 days. The CO days originally granted within which to make and serve a case-made expired on August 13, 1912; thereafter the court was *49 without jurisdiction to grant a further extension for that purpose. Comp. Laws 1909, sec. 6258 (Rev. Laws 1910, sec. 5341), provided:

“* * * 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.”

The 13th day of August, 1912, was Tuesday, and therefore should not be excluded. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. See Maddox v. Drake, 27 Okla. 418, 112 Pac. 969; Korimer v. Collins, 31 Okla. 457, 122 Pac. 159; De Vault et al. v. Merchants’ Exchange Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342.

Dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 579, 135 P. 1050, 40 Okla. 48, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-ruble-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack