McCants v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McCants v. Anderson

1911 OK 172, 115 P. 1103, 29 Okla. 8, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 224

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 9, 1911

Docket844

StatusPublished

This text of 1911 OK 172 (McCants v. Anderson) 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

McCants v. Anderson, 1911 OK 172, 115 P. 1103, 29 Okla. 8, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 224 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

DUNN, J..

This case presents .error from the county court of Seminole county. A purported case-made has been filed .with the petition in error. From the papers embraced therein it appears that on February 16, 1909, judgment was entered, and plaintiff in error allowed 60 days within which to make and serve case-made on the defendants in error. There is no evidence what *9 soever, accompanying the purported case-made, showing that it was ever served upon either the defendants in error or their counsel, or that any amendments were suggsted or allowed, or that any notice whatsoever was given of the time and place for its signing and settlement by the trial judge; nor is there any order embraced therein extending the time for the settlement of the same, and the certificate of the trial judge bears the date of May 1, 1909. Under these circumstances the proceeding in this court is a nullity, and we are without jurisdiction to review any of the questions which counsel seek to present. Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388; Devault et al. v. Merchants’ Exch. Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436; Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. State Nat. Bank of Shawnee, 25 Okla. 128, 105 Pac. 647; Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; Lankford v. Wallace, 26 Okla. 857, 110 Pac. 672; Lathim v. Schlack, 27 Okla. 522, 112 Pac. 968.

The same is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

DUNN, J..

This case presents .error from the county court of Seminole county. A purported case-made has been filed .with the petition in error. From the papers embraced therein it appears that on February 16, 1909, judgment was entered, and plaintiff in error allowed 60 days within which to make and serve case-made on the defendants in error. There is no evidence what *9 soever, accompanying the purported case-made, showing that it was ever served upon either the defendants in error or their counsel, or that any amendments were suggsted or allowed, or that any notice whatsoever was given of the time and place for its signing and settlement by the trial judge; nor is there any order embraced therein extending the time for the settlement of the same, and the certificate of the trial judge bears the date of May 1, 1909. Under these circumstances the proceeding in this court is a nullity, and we are without jurisdiction to review any of the questions which counsel seek to present. Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388; Devault et al. v. Merchants’ Exch. Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436; Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. State Nat. Bank of Shawnee, 25 Okla. 128, 105 Pac. 647; Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; Lankford v. Wallace, 26 Okla. 857, 110 Pac. 672; Lathim v. Schlack, 27 Okla. 522, 112 Pac. 968.

The same is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 172, 115 P. 1103, 29 Okla. 8, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccants-v-anderson-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack