Hancock v. Security Nat. Bank

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hancock v. Security Nat. Bank

1924 OK 542, 226 P. 44, 102 Okla. 55, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 123

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 13, 1924

Docket15076

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK 542 (Hancock v. Security Nat. Bank) 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

Hancock v. Security Nat. Bank, 1924 OK 542, 226 P. 44, 102 Okla. 55, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 123 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

This case is before us on the motion of the defendant in error to affirm the judgment of the trial court, and for judgment on the supersedeas bond.

It appears from the record that the motion for a new trial was overruled on October 16, 1923, and the, defendants were on that day granted an extension of 30 days from that date within which to prepare and serve a case-made. The case-made was not served within this time, and on November 16, 1923, an order was made granting 15 days additional time within which to prepare and serve the same. The case-made was served on November 28, 1923. The extension of November 16, 1923, was granted after the time allowed by the previous extension had expired, and the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant such subsequent extension, and the same is a nullity. Bowers et al. v. Lawrence, 88 Okla. 31, 210 Pac. 1023; Hoggard v. Convervative Loan Co., 101 Okla. 14, 222 Pac. 674.

While the case-made is certified as a transcript, no question is presented by the petition in error which could be brought here by transcript; therefore, this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and, being without jurisdiction, cannot render judgment on the supersedeas bond.

The appeal will be dismissed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and McNEILL, HARRISON, and BRANSON, JJ., concur.

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

NICHOLSON, J.

This case is before us on the motion of the defendant in error to affirm the judgment of the trial court, and for judgment on the supersedeas bond.

It appears from the record that the motion for a new trial was overruled on October 16, 1923, and the, defendants were on that day granted an extension of 30 days from that date within which to prepare and serve a case-made. The case-made was not served within this time, and on November 16, 1923, an order was made granting 15 days additional time within which to prepare and serve the same. The case-made was served on November 28, 1923. The extension of November 16, 1923, was granted after the time allowed by the previous extension had expired, and the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant such subsequent extension, and the same is a nullity. Bowers et al. v. Lawrence, 88 Okla. 31, 210 Pac. 1023; Hoggard v. Convervative Loan Co., 101 Okla. 14, 222 Pac. 674.

While the case-made is certified as a transcript, no question is presented by the petition in error which could be brought here by transcript; therefore, this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and, being without jurisdiction, cannot render judgment on the supersedeas bond.

The appeal will be dismissed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and McNEILL, HARRISON, and BRANSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 542, 226 P. 44, 102 Okla. 55, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hancock-v-security-nat-bank-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack