Polson v. Purcell and Jackson

46 P. 578, 4 Okla. 93
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 13, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 46 P. 578 (Polson v. Purcell and Jackson) 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
Polson v. Purcell and Jackson, 46 P. 578, 4 Okla. 93 (Okla. 1896).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BiebeR, J.:

The defendants in error have presented their motion to dismiss the appeal brought in this case to this court, the ground of their motion being that the-case made was not served in time.

The record shows that the judgment of the district court was rendered on the 24th day of November, 1893,. and the plaintiff in error given sixty days to make and serve case made.

It further shows that on February 1, 1894, the plaintiff in error, by his attorney, made a motion to be granted a further extension of time of thirty days to make and serve his case made, and to this motion is attached the affidavit of his attorney that he has been unable to prepare his appeal and serve case made in the-cause.

The record shows an acceptance of service of case made by the attorneys for the defendants in error, but does not show when it was served. The record should always affirmatively show that the case made was served in time. This record not only does not do this, but it does show, by the affidavit of. appellant’s own attorney,. *94 that it was not served in time, and that was his reason for getting a further extension of time. The extension of time was granted by the trial judge as asked for, but he had no power to then extend the time to make a case made, and the extension was absolutely void. (Abel v. Blair, 3 Oklahoma, 399, 41 Pacific, 342).

The appeal is dismissed.

Dale, O. J., who presided in the case below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.

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

Related

Okmulgee Securities Co. v. Osage Oil & Refining Co.
1925 OK 486 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Hawkins v. State
1911 OK CR 76 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1911)
Cohn v. State
1910 OK CR 238 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1910)
Bradford v. State
1910 OK CR 9 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1910)
Bray v. Bray
105 P. 200 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
Rasberry v. State
1909 OK CR 175 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1909)
Board of County Commissioners of Garfield v. Porter
1907 OK 98 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Rice Quinette v. Hammond
1907 OK 134 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1907)
Board of Comrs. Day Co. v. Hubble
1899 OK 7 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1899)
Blanchard v. United States
1898 OK 5 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 P. 578, 4 Okla. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polson-v-purcell-and-jackson-okla-1896.