Cottingham v. Cottingham

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Cottingham v. Cottingham

1925 OK 666, 239 P. 569, 113 Okla. 115, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 912

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 15, 1925

Docket16249

StatusPublished

This text of 1925 OK 666 (Cottingham v. Cottingham) 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

Cottingham v. Cottingham, 1925 OK 666, 239 P. 569, 113 Okla. 115, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 912 (Okla. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is appealed from an order of the district court of Osage county made on the 29tih dayl of November, 1924, denying motion of plaintiff in epror to modify a former decree of the -court -as to the sum of money to be pa-id for -the support of a minor child. Sixty days from -the date of this order was given plaintiff in error in which' to make and serve case-made.

On the 21st d-a(y of February, 1925, plaintiff in e,rror was granted -an extension -of time of thirty days in which to serve case-made and defendant in error -moives -to -dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order of extension -is void, the time having expired in which the order could be made. Under the extension granted at the time o^der was made November 29, 1924, the time expired i-n which to serve case-made -on the 28th day of January, 1925, and subsequent to this time the trial court had no jurisdiction to make an order extending the time in which -to make and servo oatee-made, and such an order of extension confers upon this court no jurisdiction to hea.V the appeal. Case-made was served on the '6th clay o-f! March, 1925. Montooth et al. v Smith, 85 Okla. 43, 203 Pac. 214; Brittain v. Lorett, 85 Okla. 49, 204 Pac. 438; Bowers v. Lawrence, 88 Okla. 31, 210 Pac. 1023.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is appealed from an order of the district court of Osage county made on the 29tih dayl of November, 1924, denying motion of plaintiff in epror to modify a former decree of the -court -as to the sum of money to be pa-id for -the support of a minor child. Sixty days from -the date of this order was given plaintiff in error in which' to make and serve case-made.

On the 21st d-a(y of February, 1925, plaintiff in e,rror was granted -an extension -of time of thirty days in which to serve case-made and defendant in error -moives -to -dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order of extension -is void, the time having expired in which the order could be made. Under the extension granted at the time o^der was made November 29, 1924, the time expired i-n which to serve case-made -on the 28th day of January, 1925, and subsequent to this time the trial court had no jurisdiction to make an order extending the time in which -to make and servo oatee-made, and such an order of extension confers upon this court no jurisdiction to hea.V the appeal. Case-made was served on the '6th clay o-f! March, 1925. Montooth et al. v Smith, 85 Okla. 43, 203 Pac. 214; Brittain v. Lorett, 85 Okla. 49, 204 Pac. 438; Bowers v. Lawrence, 88 Okla. 31, 210 Pac. 1023.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1925 OK 666, 239 P. 569, 113 Okla. 115, 1925 Okla. LEXIS 912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottingham-v-cottingham-okla-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack