Saddler v. Chappelle

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Saddler v. Chappelle

1933 OK 240, 21 P.2d 761, 163 Okla. 102, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 640

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 18, 1933

Docket23793

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1933 OK 240 (Saddler v. Chappelle) 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

Saddler v. Chappelle, 1933 OK 240, 21 P.2d 761, 163 Okla. 102, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 640 (Okla. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CUR-IAM.

A judgment obtained in this cause in the district court of Tulsa county in favor of the defendant in error was entered December 16, 1931, and thereafter on December 31, 1932, the trial court overruled the motion for new trial and plaintiffs in error were granted 30 days from that date in which to make and serve a ease-made, and the orders were apparently kept up until February 26, 1932, at which time the Hon. Thurman S. Hurst, trial judge, entered his order granting and allowing said plaintiffs in error 30 days’ additional time from said February 26, 1932, in which to make and serve ease-made. Thirty days from February 26, 1932, was March 27, 1932, and it was not until March, 30, 1932, thereafter, that the Hon. Thurman S. Hurst entered his order granting a further extension of time.

It has been a universal rule of this court, many times expressed, that an order made by the trial judge after the time has expired in which to make and serve case-made is a nullity, and where the errors complained of can only be reviewed upon a case-made, the proceedings will not be reviewed by this court.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

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

PER CUR-IAM.

A judgment obtained in this cause in the district court of Tulsa county in favor of the defendant in error was entered December 16, 1931, and thereafter on December 31, 1932, the trial court overruled the motion for new trial and plaintiffs in error were granted 30 days from that date in which to make and serve a ease-made, and the orders were apparently kept up until February 26, 1932, at which time the Hon. Thurman S. Hurst, trial judge, entered his order granting and allowing said plaintiffs in error 30 days’ additional time from said February 26, 1932, in which to make and serve ease-made. Thirty days from February 26, 1932, was March 27, 1932, and it was not until March, 30, 1932, thereafter, that the Hon. Thurman S. Hurst entered his order granting a further extension of time.

It has been a universal rule of this court, many times expressed, that an order made by the trial judge after the time has expired in which to make and serve case-made is a nullity, and where the errors complained of can only be reviewed upon a case-made, the proceedings will not be reviewed by this court.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1933 OK 240, 21 P.2d 761, 163 Okla. 102, 1933 Okla. LEXIS 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saddler-v-chappelle-okla-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack