Majors v. Dennis

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Majors v. Dennis

1954 OK 169, 273 P.2d 767, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 595

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 25, 1954

DocketNo. 36161

StatusPublished

This text of 1954 OK 169 (Majors v. Dennis) 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

Majors v. Dennis, 1954 OK 169, 273 P.2d 767, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 595 (Okla. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Judgment was entered for plaintiff in an action on a contract and thereafter on February 26, 1953, the assigned judge overruled a motion for new trial and ■extended the time in which to make and serve a case-made for 60 days. This order was entered under the power of his assignment and was valid. Thereafter on April .23, 1953, and on June 16, 1953, the assigned judge éntered two orders1 extending the time in which to make and serve case-made. These orders were issued after the date of the assignment had expired and were therefore void. Shoumake v. Mantooth, 203 Okl. 168, 219 P.2d 202.

The time in which to make and ■serve case-made after the 15 days allowed by statute can only.be authorized by:a valid order and the consent of the parties to’ an. -extension is of no effect without such valid order. Horner v. Christy, 4 Okl. 553, 46 P. 561; Bettis v. Cargile, 23 Okl. 301, 100 P. 436; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okl. 371, 112 P. 1040; J. W. Ripey & Son v. Art Wall Paper Mill, 27 Okl. 600, 112 P. 1119.

Defendants argue that by reason of 20 O.S.1953 Supp. § 103.1 an assigned judge is now authorized to enter orders of extension and that this enactment should be construed retroactively. Regardless of the effect of this act it could not apply to the facts involved in this case for the reason that the judge was not within the district when the orders were signed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Judgment was entered for plaintiff in an action on a contract and thereafter on February 26, 1953, the assigned judge overruled a motion for new trial and ■extended the time in which to make and serve a case-made for 60 days. This order was entered under the power of his assignment and was valid. Thereafter on April .23, 1953, and on June 16, 1953, the assigned judge éntered two orders1 extending the time in which to make and serve case-made. These orders were issued after the date of the assignment had expired and were therefore void. Shoumake v. Mantooth, 203 Okl. 168, 219 P.2d 202.

The time in which to make and ■serve case-made after the 15 days allowed by statute can only.be authorized by:a valid order and the consent of the parties to’ an. -extension is of no effect without such valid order. Horner v. Christy, 4 Okl. 553, 46 P. 561; Bettis v. Cargile, 23 Okl. 301, 100 P. 436; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okl. 371, 112 P. 1040; J. W. Ripey & Son v. Art Wall Paper Mill, 27 Okl. 600, 112 P. 1119.

Defendants argue that by reason of 20 O.S.1953 Supp. § 103.1 an assigned judge is now authorized to enter orders of extension and that this enactment should be construed retroactively. Regardless of the effect of this act it could not apply to the facts involved in this case for the reason that the judge was not within the district when the orders were signed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1954 OK 169, 273 P.2d 767, 1954 Okla. LEXIS 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/majors-v-dennis-okla-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack