Casner v. Wooley

1911 OK 79, 114 P. 700, 28 Okla. 424, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 113
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided March 21, 1911·No. 1320·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

TURNER, C. J.

On January 9, 1909, tbe special judge trying the cause, after overruling the motion for a new trial, entered .judgment against the plaintiff, taxed him with the cost, and gave him 90 days in which to prepare and serve a case-made. After •the expiration of the term, and after he had ceased to sit as such, .•said judge, on March 30, 1909, granted an extension of time for .said purpose, and the case-made in question was signed and settled by him within the time thus extended.

The petition in error should be dismissed, pursuant to the motion filed. The law in Hornor et al. v. Goltry & Sons, 23 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111, and cases there cited, govern this case.

It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

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

Casner v. Wooley, 1911 OK 79, 114 P. 700, 28 Okla. 424, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 113 (Okla. 1911).

1911 OK 79 (Casner v. Wooley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ragan v. Shannon
1924 OK 453 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Rogers, County Treasurer v. Bass Harbour Co.
150 P. 706 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Curlee v. Ruland
1915 OK 406 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Bradley v. Farmers' State Bank
1915 OK 117 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Cantwell v. Patterson
1914 OK 119 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Lidecker Tool Co. v. Coghill, Constable
1912 OK 808 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
City of Shawnee v. State Pub. Co.
1912 OK 515 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Murphey v. Favors
1912 OK 54 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)