Willson v. Willson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Willson v. Willson

1910 OK 371, 112 P. 970, 27 Okla. 419, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 224

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 16, 1910

Docket1886

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 1910 OK 371 (Willson v. Willson) 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

Willson v. Willson, 1910 OK 371, 112 P. 970, 27 Okla. 419, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 224 (Okla. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

DIJNN, C. J.

In this case error is sought to be shown in a judgment of the district court of Okmulgee county, Oklahoma. The motion for new trial was overruled on the 2d day of April, 1910, and ninety days extension of time given plaintiff in error within which to make and serve a case-made. A purported case-made was prepared by counsel, but was not served until July 8, 19.10, or a period of about one week after the expiration of the time granted by the court. July 23, Í910, the said case-made, attached to a petition in error, was filed in this court, and on August 20, 1910, counsel for defendant in error moved to dismiss the same by reason of the fact that the case-made was not served within the statutory period of three days, nor with *420 in an extension of time allowed by the judge or the court within said time. This motion must be sustained, the rule being that a party desiring 'to appeal has three days by statute in which to serve the case-made after the judgment or order appealed from is entered, and unless such case-made is served within that time, or within an extension of time allowed by the judge or court within said time, the case will not be considered in this court. Devault et al. v. Merchants’ Exchange Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342; London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummins et al., 23 Okla. 126, 99 Pac. 654; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436; Carr v. Thompson et al., ante, 108 Pac. 1101.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

DIJNN, C. J.

In this case error is sought to be shown in a judgment of the district court of Okmulgee county, Oklahoma. The motion for new trial was overruled on the 2d day of April, 1910, and ninety days extension of time given plaintiff in error within which to make and serve a case-made. A purported case-made was prepared by counsel, but was not served until July 8, 19.10, or a period of about one week after the expiration of the time granted by the court. July 23, Í910, the said case-made, attached to a petition in error, was filed in this court, and on August 20, 1910, counsel for defendant in error moved to dismiss the same by reason of the fact that the case-made was not served within the statutory period of three days, nor with *420 in an extension of time allowed by the judge or the court within said time. This motion must be sustained, the rule being that a party desiring 'to appeal has three days by statute in which to serve the case-made after the judgment or order appealed from is entered, and unless such case-made is served within that time, or within an extension of time allowed by the judge or court within said time, the case will not be considered in this court. Devault et al. v. Merchants’ Exchange Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342; London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummins et al., 23 Okla. 126, 99 Pac. 654; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436; Carr v. Thompson et al., ante, 108 Pac. 1101.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1910 OK 371, 112 P. 970, 27 Okla. 419, 1910 Okla. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willson-v-willson-okla-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack