Perry v. Hoblit

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Perry v. Hoblit

1912 OK 812, 129 P. 693, 35 Okla. 362, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 582

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 3, 1912

Docket4509

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1912 OK 812 (Perry v. Hoblit) 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

Perry v. Hoblit, 1912 OK 812, 129 P. 693, 35 Okla. 362, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 582 (Okla. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PIAYES, J.

This proceeding in error is prosecuted upon petition in error and case-made. A motion to dismiss same has been filed by defendant in error, urging a dismissal thereof upon the ground that the case-made is void for two reasons. On the 12th day of June, A. D. 1912, the trial court made an order extending the time within which plaintiffs in error could serve their case-made for a period of 60 days from that date. This period of time expired on the 11th day of August. The case-made was not served during said period of time, and no further extension of time was made within that period. On the 12th day of August a second order of extension was made, and subsequently the case-made was served within the time attempted by this second order *363 to be granted; but the second order of extension was void, for the reason that it was not made within the statutory three days’ time for serving the case-made, nor within any time extended during such.period. Soliss v. Davis, 28 Okla. 496, 114 Pac. 609.

A further reason why the second order made on August 12th is void is that at the time of making same the trial judge was without the state, being at that time in the state of Arkansas. Blanchard v. U. S., 6 Okla. 587, 52 Pac. 736.

The motion to dismiss should be, and is, sustained.

TURNER, C. J., and WILLIAMS and DUNN, JJ., concur; KANE, J., not participating.

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

PIAYES, J.

This proceeding in error is prosecuted upon petition in error and case-made. A motion to dismiss same has been filed by defendant in error, urging a dismissal thereof upon the ground that the case-made is void for two reasons. On the 12th day of June, A. D. 1912, the trial court made an order extending the time within which plaintiffs in error could serve their case-made for a period of 60 days from that date. This period of time expired on the 11th day of August. The case-made was not served during said period of time, and no further extension of time was made within that period. On the 12th day of August a second order of extension was made, and subsequently the case-made was served within the time attempted by this second order *363 to be granted; but the second order of extension was void, for the reason that it was not made within the statutory three days’ time for serving the case-made, nor within any time extended during such.period. Soliss v. Davis, 28 Okla. 496, 114 Pac. 609.

A further reason why the second order made on August 12th is void is that at the time of making same the trial judge was without the state, being at that time in the state of Arkansas. Blanchard v. U. S., 6 Okla. 587, 52 Pac. 736.

The motion to dismiss should be, and is, sustained.

TURNER, C. J., and WILLIAMS and DUNN, JJ., concur; KANE, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1912 OK 812, 129 P. 693, 35 Okla. 362, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-hoblit-okla-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack