Lovejoy, Russell & James v. Graham

1912 OK 379, 124 P. 25, 33 Okla. 129, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 651

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

Motion for new trial, having been filed in due time, was overruled on May 29, 1911. The court on said date also made the following order:

“And defendants are given by the court, in open court, ninety days to make, then ten days for plaintiff to suggest amendments and five days to settle a case-made for'the Supreme Court and sixty days thereafter to file same, with petition in error, in the Supreme Court.”

Plaintiffs would not be required to suggest amendments until the case-made had been made and served upon them. The case-made was not served upon the plaintiff-s until after said ninety days had expired; but it is insisted by the plaintiffs in error that it was served upon plaintiffs within fifteen days after the expiration of said ninety days, and that until the ten days allowed to suggest amendments and five days to settle had expired the court had jurisdiction to make an order extending the time in which to make and serve a case-made; but no authorities have been cited by counsel to sustain this contention, and we think that none can be found.

It is settled that an order made after the expiration of the time allowed for making and serving a case-made, extending the time for such purpose, is a nullity; and a case-made served out of such time cannot be considered. Mutual Trust Co. v. Farmers’ Loan & Security Co., 27 Okla. 414, 112 Pac. 967; Lathim v. Schlack, 27 Okla. 522, 112 Pac. 968; Maddox v. Drake, 27 Okla. 418, 112 Pac. 969; Soliss v. Davis, 28 Okla. 496, 114 Pac. 609; Ellis et al. v. Carr, 25 Okla. 874, 108 Pac. 1101; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436.

It follows that this proceeding in error must be dismissed.

TURNER, C. J., arid HAYES,' KANE, and DUNN, JJ., concur.