Murphey v. Favors

1912 OK 54, 120 P. 641, 31 Okla. 162, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 21
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 9, 1912
Docket3262
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1912 OK 54 (Murphey v. Favors) 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
Murphey v. Favors, 1912 OK 54, 120 P. 641, 31 Okla. 162, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 21 (Okla. 1912).

Opinion

HAYES, J.

The regular judge of the court below was disqualified to try this cause, and a special judge, elected for that *163 purpose, presided at the trial. Upon the rendition and entry of final judgment, an order was made by the court extending the time for a period of 30 days for making and serving a case-made by plaintiff in error. The case-made was not made and served within the time granted by this order; but during said period of 30 days, another order was made by the special judge, granting a further extension of 60 days. During said period of 60 days, the regular judge made an order granting an extension for a further period of time, within which the case-made was served. But, since the order made by the regular judge was not made within the time originally granted by the court, such order is void, if-the special judge was, after he had ceased to sit as judge of the -court at the trial, without authority to extend the time for making and serving the case.

A motion to dismiss, directed against the validity of the case-made, upon the ground that the special judge was without such authority, has been filed by defendant in error, and it must be sustained; for it has been several times held by this court that, while a special judge or a judge pro tempore possesses the power to sign and settle the case-made after he has ceased to sit as judge, he has no power, after he ceases to sit as judge, to extend the time for its service, settlement and signing; and, where he attempts to do so, his act is a nullity. Casner v. Wooley, 28 Okla. 424, 114 Pac. 700; Horner v. Goltry & Sons, 23 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111.

This proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Ragan v. Shannon
1924 OK 453 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Bradley v. Farmers' State Bank
1915 OK 117 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Lidecker Tool Co. v. Coghill, Constable
1912 OK 808 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1912 OK 54, 120 P. 641, 31 Okla. 162, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphey-v-favors-okla-1912.