Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King

1919 OK 342, 185 P. 439, 76 Okla. 316, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 200

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 25, 1919

Docket10929

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1919 OK 342 (Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King) 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

Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King, 1919 OK 342, 185 P. 439, 76 Okla. 316, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 200 (Okla. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, J.

The motion for new trial in this case was overruled on the 8th day of April, 1919, at which time plaintiff was granted sixty days in which to make and serve ease-made in the Supreme Court. On June 2,1919, an order was made granting an extension of fifteen days from and after June 6, 1919, for preparing, serving and filing said case-made. On June 23, 1919, a further extension of thirty days from June 21, 1919, was granted by the court. On July 22-, 1919, a further extension of thirty days was granted. The two latter orders were invalid because made after the expiration of the time originally granted: Latham v. Schlack, 27 Okla. 522, 112 Pac. 968; Lawson et al. v. Zeigler, 33 Okla. 368, 125 Pac. 724; Hurst et al. v. Wheeler, 35 Okla. 639, 130 Pac. 934; Williams v. New State Bank, 38 Okla. 326, 132 Pac. 1087; Campbell v. Ruble, 40 Okla. 48, 135 Pac. 1050; Wills v. Buzbee, 42 Okla. 206, 140 Pac. 1146; Morgan et al. v. Board of Comm’rs of Logan County, 59 Okla. 290, 159 Pac. 514. The ease-made was served August 20, 1919. after the time originally granted had expired, as well as after the expiration of the additional period provided by the subsequent invalid orders.

The plaintiff, at the time this appeal was attempted, had three days by statute in which to make and serve case-made upon the defendant, after the judgment was entered, and, not having done so within that time, or the extension of sixty days granted by the court, the. case cannot be considered by this court. Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; Foulds v. Hubbard, 36 Okla. 146, 128 Pac. 108; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Rickey, 33 Okla. 481, 126 Pac. 735; Brown-Beane Co. et al. v. Rucker et al., 36 Okla. 696, 136 Pac. 1075; Wills v. Buzbee, 42 Okla. 206, 140 Pac. 1146.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

KANE, J.

The motion for new trial in this case was overruled on the 8th day of April, 1919, at which time plaintiff was granted sixty days in which to make and serve ease-made in the Supreme Court. On June 2,1919, an order was made granting an extension of fifteen days from and after June 6, 1919, for preparing, serving and filing said case-made. On June 23, 1919, a further extension of thirty days from June 21, 1919, was granted by the court. On July 22-, 1919, a further extension of thirty days was granted. The two latter orders were invalid because made after the expiration of the time originally granted: Latham v. Schlack, 27 Okla. 522, 112 Pac. 968; Lawson et al. v. Zeigler, 33 Okla. 368, 125 Pac. 724; Hurst et al. v. Wheeler, 35 Okla. 639, 130 Pac. 934; Williams v. New State Bank, 38 Okla. 326, 132 Pac. 1087; Campbell v. Ruble, 40 Okla. 48, 135 Pac. 1050; Wills v. Buzbee, 42 Okla. 206, 140 Pac. 1146; Morgan et al. v. Board of Comm’rs of Logan County, 59 Okla. 290, 159 Pac. 514. The ease-made was served August 20, 1919. after the time originally granted had expired, as well as after the expiration of the additional period provided by the subsequent invalid orders.

The plaintiff, at the time this appeal was attempted, had three days by statute in which to make and serve case-made upon the defendant, after the judgment was entered, and, not having done so within that time, or the extension of sixty days granted by the court, the. case cannot be considered by this court. Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; Foulds v. Hubbard, 36 Okla. 146, 128 Pac. 108; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Rickey, 33 Okla. 481, 126 Pac. 735; Brown-Beane Co. et al. v. Rucker et al., 36 Okla. 696, 136 Pac. 1075; Wills v. Buzbee, 42 Okla. 206, 140 Pac. 1146.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1919 OK 342, 185 P. 439, 76 Okla. 316, 1919 Okla. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cripple-creek-oil-co-v-king-okla-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack