Southern Surety Co. v. Smith

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Southern Surety Co. v. Smith

1917 OK 292, 184 P. 905, 74 Okla. 313, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 236

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 6, 1917

Docket7898

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 1917 OK 292 (Southern Surety Co. v. Smith) 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

Southern Surety Co. v. Smith, 1917 OK 292, 184 P. 905, 74 Okla. 313, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 236 (Okla. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

COLLIER, C.

This is an action brought by the defendánt in error against plaintiff in error to recover upon a bond executed as surety for a guardian. There was judgment for defendant in error in the sum of $1,600, and interest, to which plaintiff in error duly excepted. Motion for new trial was timely filed, overruled, said action of the court duly excepted to, and error brought to this court.

Motion is made to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that it does not affirmatively appear from the record that the case-made was served within the time fixed for service thereof, and upon other grounds which we deem unnecessary to consider. A careful examination of the record does not disclose that the case-made was served upon the defendant in error within the time allowed by the court or was served at any time. The letter of the attorney for defendant in error to attorney for plaintiff in error, relied upon by plaintiff in error as proof of the time of service of said case-made, is too indefinite to constitute proof of service of the case-made. Besidés, said letter was not written until after the expiration of time fixed for service of the case-made, at a time that the trial court could not have legally extended the time for serving a case-made, a time fixed therefor having expired. The case-made is a nullity, and confers no jurisdiction upon this court, and is not certified as a transcript.

“A purported case-made which is net served within the statutory time after the judgment appealed from is entered, or within an extension of time duly allowed, is a nullity, and cannot' be considered by the Supreme Court.” Navarre v. Finerty, 56 Okla. 218, 154 Pac. 1143; Powell v. First State Bank of Clinton. 56 Okla. 44, 155 Pac. 500.

“An order or orders, purporting to grant an extension of time in which to serve case-made for appeal to the Supreme Court, made *314 after the expiration of the time or times formerly allowed, is and are nullities, and appeal based upon service of case-made thereunder will be dismissed.” Morgan v. Board of Commissioners of Logan County, 59 Okla. 290, 159 Pac. 514.

It follows that the appeal must he dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

COLLIER, C.

This is an action brought by the defendánt in error against plaintiff in error to recover upon a bond executed as surety for a guardian. There was judgment for defendant in error in the sum of $1,600, and interest, to which plaintiff in error duly excepted. Motion for new trial was timely filed, overruled, said action of the court duly excepted to, and error brought to this court.

Motion is made to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that it does not affirmatively appear from the record that the case-made was served within the time fixed for service thereof, and upon other grounds which we deem unnecessary to consider. A careful examination of the record does not disclose that the case-made was served upon the defendant in error within the time allowed by the court or was served at any time. The letter of the attorney for defendant in error to attorney for plaintiff in error, relied upon by plaintiff in error as proof of the time of service of said case-made, is too indefinite to constitute proof of service of the case-made. Besidés, said letter was not written until after the expiration of time fixed for service of the case-made, at a time that the trial court could not have legally extended the time for serving a case-made, a time fixed therefor having expired. The case-made is a nullity, and confers no jurisdiction upon this court, and is not certified as a transcript.

“A purported case-made which is net served within the statutory time after the judgment appealed from is entered, or within an extension of time duly allowed, is a nullity, and cannot' be considered by the Supreme Court.” Navarre v. Finerty, 56 Okla. 218, 154 Pac. 1143; Powell v. First State Bank of Clinton. 56 Okla. 44, 155 Pac. 500.

“An order or orders, purporting to grant an extension of time in which to serve case-made for appeal to the Supreme Court, made *314 after the expiration of the time or times formerly allowed, is and are nullities, and appeal based upon service of case-made thereunder will be dismissed.” Morgan v. Board of Commissioners of Logan County, 59 Okla. 290, 159 Pac. 514.

It follows that the appeal must he dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK 292, 184 P. 905, 74 Okla. 313, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-surety-co-v-smith-okla-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack