Walker v. Reginald

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Walker v. Reginald

1915 OK 608, 151 P. 680, 51 Okla. 10, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 920

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 7, 1915

Docket5765

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1915 OK 608 (Walker v. Reginald) 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

Walker v. Reginald, 1915 OK 608, 151 P. 680, 51 Okla. 10, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 920 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

BRETT, C.

This is an appeal from the district court of Texas county. On the 7th day of May, 1913, the plaintiffs in error presented their motion for a new trial, which was on that date overruled, and the journal entry overruling said motion makes an order fixing the time for making and serving the ■ case-made in the following language:

“It is further ordered and adjudged that plaintiff have 90 days in which to make and serve case; the defend-. s.nt 20 days to make and suggest amendments; that plaintiff give three days’ notice of settlement of case-made.”

And on August 7, 1913, the plaintiffs in error obtained an order extending the time for making and serving their case-made, and, within the time fixed by this order extending the time, made and served the case-made. The matter now comes up on motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the appeal, because the order extending the time was made out of time, and after the district court had lost jurisdiction of the cause.

The record clearly shows that from the 7th of May, 1913, the date upon which the judgment fixing the time for making and serving the case-made was entered, until August 7, 1913, the date upon which the order extending the time was made, 92 days had elapsed. It is therefore *12 apparent that the district court had lost jurisdiction of the cause on August 7, 1918, for the reason that the judgment had at that time been allowed to become final, and the order extending the time made upon that date was a nullity; and the case-made, which was made and served in conformity to that order, conferred no jurisdiction upon this court. Bray v. Bray, 25 Okla. 71, 105 Pac. 200, and cases cited; County Commissioners v. Porter, 19 Okla. 173, 92 Pac. 152; Bettis v. Cargile, 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436; Carr. v. Thompson, 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 371, 112 Pac. 1040; First National Bank v. Oklahoma National Bank, 29 Okla. 411, 118 Pac. 574; and many other cases to the same effect.

We therefore recommend that the motion to dismiss the appeal be sustained, and the appeal 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

BRETT, C.

This is an appeal from the district court of Texas county. On the 7th day of May, 1913, the plaintiffs in error presented their motion for a new trial, which was on that date overruled, and the journal entry overruling said motion makes an order fixing the time for making and serving the ■ case-made in the following language:

“It is further ordered and adjudged that plaintiff have 90 days in which to make and serve case; the defend-. s.nt 20 days to make and suggest amendments; that plaintiff give three days’ notice of settlement of case-made.”

And on August 7, 1913, the plaintiffs in error obtained an order extending the time for making and serving their case-made, and, within the time fixed by this order extending the time, made and served the case-made. The matter now comes up on motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the appeal, because the order extending the time was made out of time, and after the district court had lost jurisdiction of the cause.

The record clearly shows that from the 7th of May, 1913, the date upon which the judgment fixing the time for making and serving the case-made was entered, until August 7, 1913, the date upon which the order extending the time was made, 92 days had elapsed. It is therefore *12 apparent that the district court had lost jurisdiction of the cause on August 7, 1918, for the reason that the judgment had at that time been allowed to become final, and the order extending the time made upon that date was a nullity; and the case-made, which was made and served in conformity to that order, conferred no jurisdiction upon this court. Bray v. Bray, 25 Okla. 71, 105 Pac. 200, and cases cited; County Commissioners v. Porter, 19 Okla. 173, 92 Pac. 152; Bettis v. Cargile, 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436; Carr. v. Thompson, 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 371, 112 Pac. 1040; First National Bank v. Oklahoma National Bank, 29 Okla. 411, 118 Pac. 574; and many other cases to the same effect.

We therefore recommend that the motion to dismiss the appeal be sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 608, 151 P. 680, 51 Okla. 10, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-reginald-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack