Samuel Dodsworth Book Co. v. Fulcher

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Samuel Dodsworth Book Co. v. Fulcher

1920 OK 356, 194 P. 218, 80 Okla. 96, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 165

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 30, 1920

Docket9681

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1920 OK 356 (Samuel Dodsworth Book Co. v. Fulcher) 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

Samuel Dodsworth Book Co. v. Fulcher, 1920 OK 356, 194 P. 218, 80 Okla. 96, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 165 (Okla. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

The motion to dismiss, to which there has been no response, urges among other grounds that the case-made was not served within the time allowed by law or an extension thereof; that the case-made was signed and settled without giving notice to the defendant in error of the time and place of signing and settling, and without waiver of notice and in the absence of defendant in error and his counsel; and that the petition in error presents no assignment which can be reviewed upon a transcript. The motion is well taken.

The record discloses that the case-made was not served until after the expiration of the 15 days allowed by law or a valid order of the court granting an extension of this time. A purported case-made which is not served within 15 days after the judgment or order is entered or within an extension of time duly allowed is a nullity and cannot be considered by the Supreme Court. Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 221; Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King, 76 Okla. 316, 185 Pac. 439.

The record further shows that the case-made was signed and settled without notice to the defendant in error and without waiver of such notice, and that defendant in error was not present either personally or by counsel at the settlement. Where it does not affirmatively appear that notice of time and place of signing and settling case-made was served on opposing party or his counsel, or that such notice was waived or that opposing party was present in person or by counsel, the appeal will be dismissed on motion of the defendant in error. Perfection Refining Co. v. Woolworth, 76 Okla. 297, 185 Pac. 327; Harkins v. McPhail, 77 Okla. 162, 187 Pac. 222.

The matters urged for review concern motions presented to the trial court, rulings thereon, and exceptions thereto, and are not properly a part of the record. They cannot, therefore, be preserved and presented for review on appeal except by being incorporated in a bill of exceptions or case-made.

Where case-made is not served until the expiration of the time allowed by a valid order of the court extending the time for such preparation and service, it is void, and, although such ease-made may be certified as a transcript of record, the proceedings in error will be dismissed where the petition in error presents no assignment that can be reviewed upon a transcript. Folsom v. Billy, 78 Okla. 146, 189 Pac. 188; Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 221.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except PITCH-FORD, J., disqualified and not participating.

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

JOHNSON, J.

The motion to dismiss, to which there has been no response, urges among other grounds that the case-made was not served within the time allowed by law or an extension thereof; that the case-made was signed and settled without giving notice to the defendant in error of the time and place of signing and settling, and without waiver of notice and in the absence of defendant in error and his counsel; and that the petition in error presents no assignment which can be reviewed upon a transcript. The motion is well taken.

The record discloses that the case-made was not served until after the expiration of the 15 days allowed by law or a valid order of the court granting an extension of this time. A purported case-made which is not served within 15 days after the judgment or order is entered or within an extension of time duly allowed is a nullity and cannot be considered by the Supreme Court. Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 221; Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King, 76 Okla. 316, 185 Pac. 439.

The record further shows that the case-made was signed and settled without notice to the defendant in error and without waiver of such notice, and that defendant in error was not present either personally or by counsel at the settlement. Where it does not affirmatively appear that notice of time and place of signing and settling case-made was served on opposing party or his counsel, or that such notice was waived or that opposing party was present in person or by counsel, the appeal will be dismissed on motion of the defendant in error. Perfection Refining Co. v. Woolworth, 76 Okla. 297, 185 Pac. 327; Harkins v. McPhail, 77 Okla. 162, 187 Pac. 222.

The matters urged for review concern motions presented to the trial court, rulings thereon, and exceptions thereto, and are not properly a part of the record. They cannot, therefore, be preserved and presented for review on appeal except by being incorporated in a bill of exceptions or case-made.

Where case-made is not served until the expiration of the time allowed by a valid order of the court extending the time for such preparation and service, it is void, and, although such ease-made may be certified as a transcript of record, the proceedings in error will be dismissed where the petition in error presents no assignment that can be reviewed upon a transcript. Folsom v. Billy, 78 Okla. 146, 189 Pac. 188; Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 221.

For the reasons stated, the appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except PITCH-FORD, J., disqualified and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK 356, 194 P. 218, 80 Okla. 96, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-dodsworth-book-co-v-fulcher-okla-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack