Cantwell v. Patterson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Cantwell v. Patterson

1914 OK 119, 139 P. 517, 40 Okla. 497, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 67

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 10, 1914

Docket5785

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1914 OK 119 (Cantwell v. Patterson) 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

Cantwell v. Patterson, 1914 OK 119, 139 P. 517, 40 Okla. 497, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 67 (Okla. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

*498 HAYES, C. J.

This cause was tried in the court below before a judge -pro tempore, who, after verdict had been returned and judgment rendered, granted to plaintiff in error 60 days within which to prepare and serve his case-made. The case-made was not prepared and served within that time, but within that time plaintiff in error secured from the judge pro tempore an order extending the time within which to make and serve his case for.the further period of thirty days; and the case-made was served within the time designated by the second order of extension. Defendants in error have moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the judge pro tempore had no power after he ceased to sit in the case to grant additional time in which to prepare and serve the case; and the case-made having therefore been served out of time, said case-made is void. That this contention of defendants in error is well taken has been held several times by this court. Casner v. Wooley, 28 Okla. 424, 114 Pac. 700; Horner v. Goltry & Sons, 23 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111. The proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

*498 HAYES, C. J.

This cause was tried in the court below before a judge -pro tempore, who, after verdict had been returned and judgment rendered, granted to plaintiff in error 60 days within which to prepare and serve his case-made. The case-made was not prepared and served within that time, but within that time plaintiff in error secured from the judge pro tempore an order extending the time within which to make and serve his case for.the further period of thirty days; and the case-made was served within the time designated by the second order of extension. Defendants in error have moved to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the judge pro tempore had no power after he ceased to sit in the case to grant additional time in which to prepare and serve the case; and the case-made having therefore been served out of time, said case-made is void. That this contention of defendants in error is well taken has been held several times by this court. Casner v. Wooley, 28 Okla. 424, 114 Pac. 700; Horner v. Goltry & Sons, 23 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111. The proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1914 OK 119, 139 P. 517, 40 Okla. 497, 1914 Okla. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantwell-v-patterson-okla-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack