Case ID: okla_98/html/0056-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RAY. O.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BERRY v. PEUTER.
    No. 12211 —
    Opinion Filed Jan. 15, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied March 4, 1924.
    Appeal and Error — Case-Made — Extension of Time — Invalidity.
    An order extending time to make and serve case-made after expiration of the time given in a former order is void, and a case-made served, settled, and signed thereafter is a nullity; and in such case, where the questions presented in plaintiff in error’s brief cannot be reviewed upon the transcript, the judgment will he affirmed.
    (Syllabus by Ray, ('.)
    
      Commissioners’ Opinion,
    Division No. 1
    Error from District Court, Payne County; Arthur R. Swank, Judge.
    Action by R. E. Reuter against W. M. Berry, doing business as the Oil Field Junk & Supply Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Thompson. THlson & Thompson, J. M. Springer, and Aaron Selig Barry, for plaintiff in error.
    Henry Oursler, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

RAY. O.

This record, as a case-made, is a nullity, but is certified as a transcript. At the time the motion for a new trial was overruled the defendant was given 60 days to malee and serve case-made. December 9, 1920, the time was again extended in these words:

“* * * The defQufiant; be and he is hereby granted extension of 60 days from the date thereof within which to make and serve a case-made. * * * ”

February 14, 1921, another extension was granted in which time the case-made was settled and signed. The extension of February 34, 1921, was granted after the time allowed in the previous extension had expired and was therefore void. Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 222, 192 Pac. 215, and cases there cited.

The only question argued by plaintiff in error which could be brought here by transcript is that of demurrer to plaintiff’s petition. The transcript does not include such demurrer and does not show that any demurrer was ever filed or considered by the court.

The judgment is affirmed; and, on request contained in defendant in error’s brief, judgment will be entered in this court against Adolj)li Frankel. as surety on the supersedeas bond, for $2,124.69, with interest thereon at. six per cent, from the 23rd day of October, 1920.

By the Court; It is so ordered.