The defendants in error have filed in this court their motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason the case-made was not served within the time allowed by law or any valid order of the court extending the time therefor; it being the contention of the defendants in error that the order made on September 6, 1928, extending the time in which to make and serve case-made is void for the reason it was not made until after the time given in previous orders had expired. The trial court was without jurisdiction to make the order of September 6, 1928, for the reason the time extended in the order made on July 7, 1928, had expired, and such order is void. Petty et al. v. Foster, 122 Okla. 152, 252 P. 836; Tanner v. Crawford. 80 Okla. 183, 195 P. 138; Lovejoy v. Graham, 33 Okla. 129, 124 P. 25. The plaintiff in error has responded to the motion to dismiss and urges that the first order extending time to make and serve case-made began to run at the expiration of the statutory 15-day period, and that in this case the trial court had jurisdiction until September 20, 1928, in which to make an order extending the time.
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.
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.
The certificate of settlement was dated June 24, 1932, and the petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this court on June 24, 1932. 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.
The 90-day period for preparing and serving case-made having expired on November 14, 1930, the order of November 19, 1930, purporting to grant 30 days additional time, was void. The trial court was without jurisdiction to make the order of November 19, 1930. Brittain v. Lorett, 85 Okla. 49, 204 P. 438; Petty v. Foster, 122 Okla. 152, 252 P. 836; Rourke v. Bevis, 136 Okla. 76, 276 P. 482. Where plaintiff in error fails to make and serve case-made within the time allowed by law or within the time as extended by valid order of the court, such case-made is a nullity and brings nothing before this court for review. Jones v. Blanton, 130 Okla. 200, 266 P. 438; Petty v. Foster, supra.
The time in which to serve case-made, as extended by order of the court May 30, 1930, expired on june 29, 1930. The case-made served June 30, 1930, was not 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. Shinn v. Oklahoma City Building Loan Ass'n, 130 Okla. 173. 266 Fac. 435; Petty v. Foster, 122 Okla. 153. 252 P. 836; Harrison v. Reed. 81 Okla. 149, 197 P. 159. The purported record presented clearly shows the recital in the certificate of the trial judge, that the case-made had been duly served within the time allowed by law and by order of the court, is erroneous, and in such case the record will control.
The time in which to serve the case-made as extended by order of the court of May 30, 1930, expired on June 29, 1930. The case-made served June 30, 1930, was not 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. Shinn v. Oklahoma City Building Loan Ass'n, 130 Okla. 173, 266 P. 435; Petty v. Foster, 122 Okla. 153, 252 P. 836; Harrison v. Reed, 81 Okla. 149, 197 P. 159. The purported record presented clearly shows the recital in the certificate of the trial judge, that the case-made had been duly served within the time allowed by law and the order of the court, is erroneous, and in such case the record will control.
The defendant in error has filed its motion to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds the case-made is a nullity and brings nothing before the court for review for the reason the order made on August 9, 1930, extending the time in which to make and serve case-made is void, the same having been made after the expiration of the time allowed by law and the previous orders of the court in which to serve case-made. An order extending the time for making and serving case-made, made without notice and after the expiration of the time fixed by a former valid order of the court or trial judge, is void. Shinn v. Oklahoma City Building Loan Ass'n, 130 Okla. 173, 266 P. 435; Petty v. Foster, 122 Okla. 153, 252 P. 836; Nonnamaker v. Lively, 96 Okla. 149, 220 P. 926; Bass v. Dowd, 81 Okla. 212, 197 P. 513. The order made on August 9, 1930, having been made after the expiration of the time allowed in previous orders, was void and did not extend the time in which to serve case-made.
The order of May 24, 1929, extending the time in which to make and serve case-made is void for the reason the trial court was without jurisdiction to make and enter the same. Shinn v. Oklahoma City Building Loan Ass'n, 130 Okla. 173, 266 P. 435; Petty v. Foster, 122 Okla. 152, 252 P. 836; Bass v. Dowd, 81 Okla. 212, 197 P. 513; Tanner v. Crawford, 80 Okla. 183, 195 P. 138. The time in which to serve case-made expired April 11, 1929.
At the time of the making of the order appealed from no extension of time was given by the court in which to make and serve case-made, nor was any order made extending such time until the 27th day of April, 1929. The time allowed by law in which to serve the case-made in this cause expired April 12, 1929. Section 785, C. O. S. 1991. The court was without jurisdiction to make the order of April 27, 1929, extending the time in which to make and serve case-made, and such order is void. Petty v. Foster et al., 122 Okla. 152, 252 P. 836, and cases therein cited. The case-made was not served until May 27, 1929, and therefore not within the time allowed by law or a valid order of the court.