From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Turley v. Hayes Shirk

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
May 9, 1911
115 P. 769 (Okla. 1911)

Opinion

No. 2203

Opinion Filed May 9, 1911.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made — Delay in Service — Dismissal. A party desiring to appeal obtained an order of court granting him 60 days in which to make and serve his case-made. The time originally granted not having been extended, the case-made, not having been served within said time, is invalid, and cannot be considered in this court.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Oklahoma County Court; Sam Hooker, Judge.

Action between G. W. Turley and Hayes Shirk. From the judgment, Turley brings error. Dismissed.

J. S. Jenkins, for plaintiff in error.

Loyal J. Miller, for defendants in error.


This is a proceeding by petition in error and case-made, and there is a motion to dismiss upon the ground that the case-made was not served within the time fixed by order of the court. The motion for a new trial was overruled on September 12, 1910, at which time plaintiff in error was allowed 60 days in which to make and serve his case for appeal to this court. The case-made was served upon counsel for defendants in error on the 12th day of November, 1910, or 61 days after the granting by the court of the order extending the time for that purpose.

The case-made, not having been served within the time fixed by the statute, or within the time fixed by any valid order of the court, is invalid, and cannot be considered here; and upon authority of Devault et al. v. Merchants' Exch. Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 P. 342, and Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 P. 667, this appeal must be dismissed.

All the Justices concur.


Summaries of

Turley v. Hayes Shirk

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
May 9, 1911
115 P. 769 (Okla. 1911)
Case details for

Turley v. Hayes Shirk

Case Details

Full title:TURLEY v. HAYES SHIRK

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: May 9, 1911

Citations

115 P. 769 (Okla. 1911)
115 P. 769

Citing Cases

Phillips v. Dillingham

This motion was heard March 29th, and, being overruled, it was by the court ordered that the plaintiff have…

Hurst et al. v. Wheeler

s from May 20th, the motion must still be sustained, for the reason that the time granted under said order…