L. D. Powell Co. v. Casteel

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

L. D. Powell Co. v. Casteel

1921 OK 195, 198 P. 588, 82 Okla. 117, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 195

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 31, 1921

Docket11516

StatusPublished

This text of 1921 OK 195 (L. D. Powell Co. v. Casteel) 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

L. D. Powell Co. v. Casteel, 1921 OK 195, 198 P. 588, 82 Okla. 117, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 195 (Okla. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRISON, C. J.

This record discloses that motion for new trial was overruled December 22, 1919, and plaintiff given 60 days, in addition to the 15 days provided by law, to serve ease-made: March 5, 1920, an extension of 60 days additional was granted, May 4, 1920, an extension of 15 days in addi *118 tion to the time already granted was made, making 150 days in all for serving ease-made, which expired May 20, 1920; the case-made was not served until May 22nd, two days after the time had expired.

Under the rule heretofore followed, a purported case-made, which has not been served within 15 days from the date of the Judgment or order appealed from, or within an extension of time duly allowed, cannot be consider, d by this court for lack of jurisdiction. Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 222, 192 Pac. 215; Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King, 76 Okla. 316, 185 Pac. 439; Morgan v. Board of Co. Com’rs, 59 Okla. 290, 159 Pac. 514; Wills v. Buzbee, 42 Okla. 206, 140 Pac. 1146; Gilbert v. Divelbiss, 47 Okla. 340, 148 Pac. 689.

This case might be reviewed as upon a transcript, having been filed within six months from the date of final judgment, but as the p tition in error presents no question reviewable upon transcript, there is nothing before this court. Cook v. Cook, supra; Thompson v. Stevens, 73 Oklahoma, 175 Pac. 742; Collins v. Garvey, 67 Oklahoma, 171 Pac. 330.

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

JOHNSON, McNEILL, MILLER, ELTING, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

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

HARRISON, C. J.

This record discloses that motion for new trial was overruled December 22, 1919, and plaintiff given 60 days, in addition to the 15 days provided by law, to serve ease-made: March 5, 1920, an extension of 60 days additional was granted, May 4, 1920, an extension of 15 days in addi *118 tion to the time already granted was made, making 150 days in all for serving ease-made, which expired May 20, 1920; the case-made was not served until May 22nd, two days after the time had expired.

Under the rule heretofore followed, a purported case-made, which has not been served within 15 days from the date of the Judgment or order appealed from, or within an extension of time duly allowed, cannot be consider, d by this court for lack of jurisdiction. Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 222, 192 Pac. 215; Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King, 76 Okla. 316, 185 Pac. 439; Morgan v. Board of Co. Com’rs, 59 Okla. 290, 159 Pac. 514; Wills v. Buzbee, 42 Okla. 206, 140 Pac. 1146; Gilbert v. Divelbiss, 47 Okla. 340, 148 Pac. 689.

This case might be reviewed as upon a transcript, having been filed within six months from the date of final judgment, but as the p tition in error presents no question reviewable upon transcript, there is nothing before this court. Cook v. Cook, supra; Thompson v. Stevens, 73 Oklahoma, 175 Pac. 742; Collins v. Garvey, 67 Oklahoma, 171 Pac. 330.

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

JOHNSON, McNEILL, MILLER, ELTING, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1921 OK 195, 198 P. 588, 82 Okla. 117, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-d-powell-co-v-casteel-okla-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack