Lambert v. Monarch Cement Co.

7 Citing cases

  1. Baxter v. Wilbanks

    156 Okla. 51 (Okla. 1932)   Cited 4 times

    Where a case-made is not served within the time prescribed by law or a valid order of the trial court, such case-made is a nullity and brings nothing before this court for review. Lambert v. Monarch Cement Co., 141 Okla. 31, 285 P. 844. 3.

  2. Grimes v. Ward

    64 P.2d 894 (Okla. 1937)   Cited 4 times

    The appeal must be dismissed. This court has many times held that the filing and determination of a motion for new trial on a contested question of fact arising upon a motion and not upon the pleadings is unnecessary and serves no purpose to extend the time in which to file an appeal. Powell v. Nichols, 26 Okla. 734, 110 P. 762; Williamson v. Adams, 31 Okla. 503, 122 P. 499; Wilkinson v. Thomas, 175 Okla. 351, 52 P.2d 726; United Mining Milling Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 167 Okla. 638, 31 P.2d 550; Lambert v. Monarch Cement Co., 141 Okla. 31, 285 P. 844; Haffner v. Commerce Trust Co., 177 Okla. 313, 58 P.2d 863. The appeal is dismissed.

  3. United Mining Milling v. First Nat. Bank of Davis

    31 P.2d 550 (Okla. 1934)   Cited 4 times

    Further, the filing of an unnecessary motion for a new trial and the later determination thereof does not extend the time in which to make and serve case-made. The order of the court made on the 8th day of May, 1930, extending the time in which to make and serve case-made, is a nullity for the reason that the court was without jurisdiction to make the same, such order not having been made within the 15 days allowed by law in which to make and serve case-made after the making of the order appealed from. Petty v. Foster, 122 Okla. 152, 252 P. 836; Lambert v. Monarch Cement Co., 141 Okla. 31, 285 P. 844. The case-made served July 30, 1930, not having been served within the time allowed by law or a valid order of the court, is a nullity and brings nothing before this court for review, and the petition in error not having been filed within the six months from the date of the order appealed from, this court is without jurisdiction to review the order complained of, and the appeal is dismissed.

  4. Harjo v. Johnston

    19 P.2d 961 (Okla. 1933)   Cited 6 times

    A case-made not served within the court is a nullity. Petty v. Poster, 122 Okla. 152, 252 P. 836; Lambert. v. Monarch Cement Co., 141 Okla. 31, 285 P. 844; Holiday v. Poteet, 142 Okla. 250, 286 P. 782; Massad v. Heide, 161 Okla. 68, 17 P.2d 417, and cases cited therein. Counsel for plaintiff in error urges that it was necessary to file a motion for new trial.

  5. Massad v. Heide

    17 P.2d 417 (Okla. 1932)   Cited 1 times

    An order purporting to extend the time for making and serving case-made, made and entered after the expiration of time fixed by former order, is void. Petty v. Foster, 122 Okla. 153, 252 P. 836; Goodwin v. Davis, 135 Okla. 104, 274 P. 462; Baxter v. Wilbanks, 156 Okla. 51, 9 P.2d 426; McGrew v. Land, 154 Okla. 273, 7 P.2d 676. Where plaintiff in error fails to make and serve case-made within the time required by law, or within the time as extended by valid order of the trial court, such case-made is a nullity and presents nothing to this court for review. Petty v. Foster, supra; Goodwin v. Davis, supra; Baxter v. Wilbanks, supra; Lambert v. Monarch Cement Co., 141 Okla. 31, 285 P. 844; McGrew v. Land, supra. It appears that the final order appealed from, the order overruling the motion for new trial, was made and entered on the 23rd day of December, 1931; that the appeal was not filed in this court until the 24th day of June, 1932, one day after the expiration of six months subsequent to the date of the order overruling the motion for new trial. It has been repeatedly held that under section 798, C. O. S. 1921 [O. S. 1931, sec. 547] proceedings for reversing, vacating, or modifying judgments or final orders must be commenced within six months from the rendition of the judgment or final order appealed from, and when not commenced within said period by filing petition in error and record in this court, this court is without jurisdiction and the appeal will be dismissed. Washita Consolidated School District No. 20, Caddo County, v. Arlington School Supply Co., 121 Okla. 266, 249 P. 927; Barfield Petroleum Co. v. Pickering Lumber Co., 137 Okla. 151, 278 P. 391; Baxter

  6. Wilson v. Hartin

    8 P.2d 1104 (Okla. 1932)

    This was a total of 150 days from April 11th and the time for service of case-made expired on September 8, 1931, but the case-made was not served until September 10th, two days after the expiration of the time in which to serve. Where a case-made is not served within the time prescribed by law or a valid order of the trial court, such case-made is a nullity and brings nothing before this court for review. Holiby v. Poteet, 142 Okla. 250, 286 P. 782; Lambert v. Monarch Cement Co., 141 Okla. 31, 285 P. 44. For the reasons stated and under the authorities cited, the appeal is dismissed.

  7. Whitfield v. Pippin

    1 P.2d 669 (Okla. 1931)   Cited 2 times

    In plain and simple language, this order overrules the motion to vacate the order overruling the motion for new trial, thereby leaving the order overruling the motion for new trial made on the 24th day of May, 1930, undisturbed. The six months' period from the overruling of the motion for new trial expired on November 24, 1930. Where the petition in error is not filed in this court within the time allowed by law for the filing of an appeal, this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment or order appealed from. Lambert v. Monarch Cement Co., 141 Okla. 31, 285 P. 844; Barfield Petroleum Co. v. Pickering Lumber Co., 137 Okla. 151, 278 P. 391. The assignments of error in the petition in error are based upon the ruling of the trial court during the trial of the cause, and no assignment of error in the petition in error is predicated upon the action of the trial court in denying the motion to vacate the order overruling the motion for new trial. It is unnecessary to discuss any other ground of dismissal set forth in the motion filed by the defendant in error, for the reason the proceedings for review not having been filed in this court within six months from the date of the order overruling the motion for new trial, this court is without jurisdiction to review the judgment appealed from, and the appeal is dismissed.