Tanner v. Crawford

1921 OK 25, 195 P. 138, 80 Okla. 183, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 25
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJanuary 25, 1921
Docket10001
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 1921 OK 25 (Tanner v. Crawford) 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
Tanner v. Crawford, 1921 OK 25, 195 P. 138, 80 Okla. 183, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 25 (Okla. 1921).

Opinion

MILLER, J.

Motion for a new trial having been filed in due time, same was overruled on December 7, 1917, and the court made the following order in open court, to wit:

“If the bond is furnished and approved in fifteen days that you have a further extension of sixty days to make and serve case-made, ten days in which to suggest amend-; ments, and to be settled upon five days notice.”

The journal entry of judgment rendered and entered on the 7th day of December, 1917, makes the following recital, to wit:

“ * * * Whereupon the said plaintiff gives in open court notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma, and asked for an extension of time within which to prepare and serve case-made and the court grants an extension of 60 days to make and servo case-made, 10 days to suggest amendments and the same to be settled and signed on five days’ notice.”

On February 21, 1918, the court made an order extending the time to make and serve case-made.

Held: That the court was without jurisdiction to make the order on the 21st day of February, 1918, and the appeal did not confer jurisdiction upon this court.

“Neither the court nor the judge thereof in vacation, after the time prescribed by the statute or granted by the court within which to prepare and serve a case-made has expired, has power to extend the time fixed 'by statute or previously granted by the court in which to make and serve a case-made.” Soliss v. Davis, 28 Okla. 496, 114 Pac. 609.

There may be a conflict as to the time granted by the trial judge in open court and the recitals in the journal entry o| judgment; however, we are not called upon to decide that question and are not expressing any opinion on it.

The order made in open court gives the plaintiff 15 days from December 7, 1917, in which to file her bond and have same approved. This time expired on December 22, 1917. This same order gave a further extension from said date of 60 days to make and serve ease-made. This extension of time expired on February 20, 1918. Under the statutory rule- for computation of time (Vol. 2, Revised Laws of Okla. 1910, sec. 5341, c. 60, art. 29, entitled “Computation of time”) the law reads as follows:

“The time within which an act is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day, and including the last; if the last day be Sunday, it shall be excluded.”

We find that February 20, 1918, was Wednesday.

“It is settled that an order made after the expiration of the time allowed for making and serving a case-made, extending the time for suéh purpose, is a nullity, and a case-made served out of such time cannot be considered.” Lovejoy, Russell & James v. Graham et al., 33 Okla. 129, 124 Pac. 25.

For further authorities see cases cited in Lovejoy v. Graham, supra.

It follows that this proceeding in error must be and is hereby dismissed.

HARRISON, O. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and KENNAMER, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Remund v. Liberty Nat. Bank of Weatherford
1938 OK 646 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1938)
Sugg v. Farm Home Savings Loan Ass'n.
1930 OK 416 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1930)
Tulsa Industrial Loan & Inv. Co. v. Bankers Utilities Co.
1929 OK 256 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Rourke v. Bevis
1929 OK 162 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Chase v. State
1929 OK 156 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Goodwin v. Davis
1929 OK 54 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1929)
Saxon v. Green
1928 OK 331 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Jones v. Blanton
1928 OK 244 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Shinn v. Oklahoma City Bldg. & Loan Ass'n
1928 OK 105 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Petty v. Foster
1927 OK 16 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
Bowers v. Lawrence
1922 OK 344 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1922)
Bass v. Dowd
1921 OK 139 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1921 OK 25, 195 P. 138, 80 Okla. 183, 1921 Okla. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tanner-v-crawford-okla-1921.