Doolittle v. Current
This text of 1926 OK 835 (Doolittle v. Current) 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.
Opinion
The sufficiency of the purported case-made is challenged in a motion to dismiss on the ground that the case-made was not filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Garfield county, subsequent to the signing and settling of the same as required by section 785, C. O. S. 1921, and that the time for So doing has expired.
The case-made was settled and signed on August 7, 1926, by the trial judge. The same was filed by the court clerk on July 26, 1926, according to the record. Section 785, C. O. S. 1921, requires the same to be filed after suggestion of amendments, service of the case-made, and settling and signing by the trial judge. Where the case-made is not so filed in compliance with the above statute the motion to dismiss must be sustained. Motion for new trial was overruled by the trial court on February 19, 1926, and the statutory period for perfecting the appeal has expired. See Peck v. Stephens, 35 Okla. 468, 130 Pac. 276; Harmon v. McCormack, 42 Okla. 63, 135 Pac. 1052; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bonham, 43 Okla. 637, 143 Pac. 660; State ex rel. Gross v, American National Bank, 107 Okla. 265, 232 Pac. 52.
The appeal is dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1926 OK 835, 250 P. 90, 121 Okla. 294, 1926 Okla. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doolittle-v-current-okla-1926.