Crutchfield v. Forrester

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Crutchfield v. Forrester

1939 OK 89, 87 P.2d 323, 184 Okla. 352, 1939 Okla. LEXIS 50

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 14, 1939

DocketNo. 28898.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1939 OK 89 (Crutchfield v. Forrester) 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

Crutchfield v. Forrester, 1939 OK 89, 87 P.2d 323, 184 Okla. 352, 1939 Okla. LEXIS 50 (Okla. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant in error commenced this action in the district court of Le Flore county on the 9th day of November, 1933, and obtained a judgment on the 22d day of May, 1934. After a levy of execution and sale of real property to satisfy the judgment, the trial court entered an order approving the sale on April 4, 1938. On the 22d day of April, 1938, the court overruled a motion for new trial and granted 90 days to make and serve a case-made. After the 90 days had expired, the plaintiffs in error applied to the trial court for a further extension of time to make and serve the case-made, under the provisions of section 538, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 962, and the trial court denied the application. The plaintiffs in error have applied for an extension of time under the provisions of section 539, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 963. This court is without jurisdiction to enter an order permitting the case-made to be served.

Assuming, without deciding, that an appeal could be taken from the order overruling the motion for new trial entered on April 22, 1938, the time within which to appeal expired on October 22, 1938. The plaintiffs in error not having obtained any order under the provisions of section 539, supra, this court is now without jurisdiction to enter an order permitting the making and serving of a case-made after the time for appeal has expired.

The application is denied.

BAYLESS, O. J., and CORN, GIBSON, HURST, and DAAUSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant in error commenced this action in the district court of Le Flore county on the 9th day of November, 1933, and obtained a judgment on the 22d day of May, 1934. After a levy of execution and sale of real property to satisfy the judgment, the trial court entered an order approving the sale on April 4, 1938. On the 22d day of April, 1938, the court overruled a motion for new trial and granted 90 days to make and serve a case-made. After the 90 days had expired, the plaintiffs in error applied to the trial court for a further extension of time to make and serve the case-made, under the provisions of section 538, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 962, and the trial court denied the application. The plaintiffs in error have applied for an extension of time under the provisions of section 539, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. sec. 963. This court is without jurisdiction to enter an order permitting the case-made to be served.

Assuming, without deciding, that an appeal could be taken from the order overruling the motion for new trial entered on April 22, 1938, the time within which to appeal expired on October 22, 1938. The plaintiffs in error not having obtained any order under the provisions of section 539, supra, this court is now without jurisdiction to enter an order permitting the making and serving of a case-made after the time for appeal has expired.

The application is denied.

BAYLESS, O. J., and CORN, GIBSON, HURST, and DAAUSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1939 OK 89, 87 P.2d 323, 184 Okla. 352, 1939 Okla. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crutchfield-v-forrester-okla-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack