London Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummings

1909 OK 23, 99 P. 654, 23 Okla. 126, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 332
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 26, 1909
Docket527
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 1909 OK 23 (London Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummings) 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
London Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummings, 1909 OK 23, 99 P. 654, 23 Okla. 126, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 332 (Okla. 1909).

Opinion

Hayes, J.

(after stating the facts as above). It clearly appears that the order extending the time within which to prepare and serve the case-made was not granted until after the expiration of the time allowed by the court in which to prepare and serve the same. It is well settled that neither the court nor the judge thereof in vacation after the time granted in which to prepare and serve a case-made has expired has the power to extend the time previously granted by the court in which to make and serve a ease-made. Abel v. Blair, 3 Okla. 399, 41 Pac. 342; United States v. C., O. & G. Ry. Co. et al., 3 Okla. 404, 41 Pac. 729; Sigman v. Poole, 5 Okla. 677, 49 Pac. 944; Blanchard v. United States, 6 Okla. 587, 52 Pac. 736; Board of County Commissioners of Day County v. Hubble, 8 Okla. 209, 57 Pac. 163; Noyes v. Tootle, 8 Okla. 505, 58 Pac. 652; Board of Commissioners of Garfield County v. Porter, 19 Okla. 173, 92 Pac. 152.

The assignment of error relied upon by plaintiff in error for reversal are such as can be presented only by ease-made. There is therefore nothing before this court for .review, and the motion is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Briggs v. Kinzer
1916 OK 590 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1916)
Talliaferro v. Exchange Bank of Perry
1914 OK 160 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Antis v. Parson
1913 OK 702 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Hengst v. Thompson Oil & Gas Co.
1912 OK 586 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Rickey
1912 OK 576 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Cunyan v. Clemmer
1912 OK 562 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
City of Wagoner v. Gibson
1912 OK 123 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Murphy v. Taylor
1912 OK 55 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Haynes v. Smith
119 P. 246 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
First Nat. Bank of Shawnee v. Oklahoma Nat. Bank of Shawnee
1911 OK 121 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Soliss v. Davis, County Judge
1911 OK 110 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1911)
Willson v. Willson
1910 OK 371 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Cowan v. Maxwell
1910 OK 269 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Carr v. Thompson
1910 OK 196 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Ellis v. Carr
1910 OK 66 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1909 OK 23, 99 P. 654, 23 Okla. 126, 1909 Okla. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/london-lancashire-fire-ins-co-v-cummings-okla-1909.