Chestnutt, Trustee v. Patterson Mercantile Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Chestnutt, Trustee v. Patterson Mercantile Co.

1913 OK 274, 132 P. 322, 37 Okla. 363, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 203

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 6, 1913

Docket2722

StatusPublished

This text of 1913 OK 274 (Chestnutt, Trustee v. Patterson Mercantile Co.) 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

Chestnutt, Trustee v. Patterson Mercantile Co., 1913 OK 274, 132 P. 322, 37 Okla. 363, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 203 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

ROBERTSON, C.

Defendant in error is here insisting that this appeal should be dismissed, for the reason that this court has no jurisdiction, for that the case-made was not prepared, served, and signed within the extension of time allowed by the trial court.

The record shows that the motion for a new trial was overruled November 28, 1910, and on the same day an order was entered extending the time in which to make and serve a case-made for 60 days. -This is the only order ever entered extending the time.' This extension expired January 28, 1911. The case was served February 20, 1911. There is what purports to be a stipulation between the parties on file, wherein they agree to an extension; but this stipulation was not presented to nor acted upon by the court. It is the province of the court to make orders extending the time in which to make and serve a case-made. Hence it necessarily follows, from the disclosure of the record as above set out, that the case-made was not prepared or served within the time fixed by law, or the order of the court, and the same is wholly insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court. Foulds v. Hubbard, 36 Okla. —, 128 Pac. 108; Heath v. Tanner, 30 Okla. 598, 120 Pac. 636; Carr v. Thompson, 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 371, 112 Pac. 1040.

For this reason the appeal should be dismissed.

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

ROBERTSON, C.

Defendant in error is here insisting that this appeal should be dismissed, for the reason that this court has no jurisdiction, for that the case-made was not prepared, served, and signed within the extension of time allowed by the trial court.

The record shows that the motion for a new trial was overruled November 28, 1910, and on the same day an order was entered extending the time in which to make and serve a case-made for 60 days. -This is the only order ever entered extending the time.' This extension expired January 28, 1911. The case was served February 20, 1911. There is what purports to be a stipulation between the parties on file, wherein they agree to an extension; but this stipulation was not presented to nor acted upon by the court. It is the province of the court to make orders extending the time in which to make and serve a case-made. Hence it necessarily follows, from the disclosure of the record as above set out, that the case-made was not prepared or served within the time fixed by law, or the order of the court, and the same is wholly insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon this court. Foulds v. Hubbard, 36 Okla. —, 128 Pac. 108; Heath v. Tanner, 30 Okla. 598, 120 Pac. 636; Carr v. Thompson, 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 371, 112 Pac. 1040.

For this reason the appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 274, 132 P. 322, 37 Okla. 363, 1913 Okla. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chestnutt-trustee-v-patterson-mercantile-co-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack