From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Majors v. Dennis

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
May 25, 1954
273 P.2d 767 (Okla. 1954)

Opinion

No. 36161.

May 25, 1954.

Appeal from the District Court, Carter County, John Boyce McKeel, Assigned Judge.

Champion Champion, Ardmore, for plaintiffs in error.

George George, Ardmore, for defendants in error.


Judgment was entered for plaintiff in an action on a contract and thereafter on February 26, 1953, the assigned judge overruled a motion for new trial and extended the time in which to make and serve a case-made for 60 days. This order was entered under the power of his assignment and was valid. Thereafter on April 23, 1953, and on June 16, 1953, the assigned judge entered two orders extending the time in which to make and serve case-made. These orders were issued after the date of the assignment had expired and were therefore void. Shoumake v. Mantooth, 203 Okla. 168, 219 P.2d 202.

The time in which to make and serve case-made after the 15 days allowed by statute can only be authorized by a valid order and the consent of the parties to an extension is of no effect without such valid order. Horner v. Christy, 4 Okla. 553, 46 P. 561; Bettis v. Cargile, 23 Okla. 301, 100 P. 436; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 371, 112 P. 1040; J.W. Ripey Son v. Art Wall Paper Mill, 27 Okla. 600, 112 P. 1119.

Defendants argue that by reason of 20 O.S. 1953 Supp. § 103.1 [ 20-103.1] an assigned judge is now authorized to enter orders of extension and that this enactment should be construed retroactively. Regardless of the effect of this act it could not apply to the facts involved in this case for the reason that the judge was not within the district when the orders were signed.

Appeal dismissed.


Summaries of

Majors v. Dennis

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
May 25, 1954
273 P.2d 767 (Okla. 1954)
Case details for

Majors v. Dennis

Case Details

Full title:MAJORS ET AL. v. DENNIS

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: May 25, 1954

Citations

273 P.2d 767 (Okla. 1954)
1954 OK 169

Citing Cases

Southland Inv. Co. v. Michel

As stated above, the record does not disclose the disposition made of the rule provoked by the third…