Case ID: okla_49/html/0340-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FIRST NAT. BANK OF WELLSTON v. SHAFER.
    No. 7403.
    Opinion Filed November 9, 1915.
    (152 Pac. 1084.)
    1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Time for Suggesting Amendments. The time allowed by the trial court for the suggestion of amendments to a case-made commences to run, not from the date of the service of case-made, but from the expiration of the period of extension.
    2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Signing and Settling— Time. In the absence of a waiver by the defendant in error, a case-made signed and settled by the trial court before the expiration- of the time granted for the suggestion of amendments is a nullity.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from County Court, Lincoln County; H. M. Jarrett, Judge.
    
    Action by W. E. Shafer against First National Bank of Wellston, a corporation. ' Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
    Dismissed.
    
      Ira E. Billingslea, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Erwin & Erwin, for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

In this cause the motion for new trial was overruled on February 22, 1915, and plaintiff in error granted an extension of 90 days in which to make and serve case-made, ten days thereafter' allowed for the suggestion of amendments, same to be settled and signed on five days’.notice to either party. The 90 days’ extension for serving case-made would have expired on the 23d day of May, 1915, but, such being Sunday, the extension did not expire until May 24, 1915. The ten days allowed defendant in error to suggest amendments did not expire until June 3, 1915. The case-made was served on March 30, 1915, and on May 28th, after notice duly served, the trial judge attempted to sign and settle the same, although no amendments had been suggested, nor was there any waiver on the part of the defendant in error. This was error, and the motion to dismiss will be sustained. Reed v. Walcott, 40 Okla. 451, 139 Pac. 318; Cummings v. Tate et al., 47 Okla. 54, 147 Pac. 304.

It is so ordered.