Heath v. Tanner

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Heath v. Tanner

1912 OK 40, 120 P. 636, 30 Okla. 598, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 166

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 9, 1912

Docket1215

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1912 OK 40 (Heath v. Tanner) 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

Heath v. Tanner, 1912 OK 40, 120 P. 636, 30 Okla. 598, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 166 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

ROBERTSON, C.

In this case judgment was entered on November 28, 1908. Service of case-made was acknowledged by attorneys for defendant in error March 29, 1909. Waiver of notice as to the time and place of settling and signing was signed by attorneys for defendants November 5, 1909. The purported case-made was not made and served within three days from the date of judgment, and no extension of time for that purpose was asked for by plaintiff in error, or granted by the court. This court, therefore, is without jurisdiction to consider any of the alleged errors sought to be shown thereby. Therefore, on the authority of Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667, Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388, McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 371, 112 Pac. 1040, Willson v. Willson, 27 Okla. 419, 112 Pac. 970, School District v. Cox, 27 Okla. 459, 112 Pac. 1041, and Lathim v. Schlack, 27 Okla. 522, 112 Pac. 968, the petition in error is dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

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

Opinion by

ROBERTSON, C.

In this case judgment was entered on November 28, 1908. Service of case-made was acknowledged by attorneys for defendant in error March 29, 1909. Waiver of notice as to the time and place of settling and signing was signed by attorneys for defendants November 5, 1909. The purported case-made was not made and served within three days from the date of judgment, and no extension of time for that purpose was asked for by plaintiff in error, or granted by the court. This court, therefore, is without jurisdiction to consider any of the alleged errors sought to be shown thereby. Therefore, on the authority of Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667, Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388, McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 371, 112 Pac. 1040, Willson v. Willson, 27 Okla. 419, 112 Pac. 970, School District v. Cox, 27 Okla. 459, 112 Pac. 1041, and Lathim v. Schlack, 27 Okla. 522, 112 Pac. 968, the petition in error is dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 40, 120 P. 636, 30 Okla. 598, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-tanner-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack