Case ID: okla_29/html/0008-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DUNN, J..", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McCANTS et al. v. ANDERSON et al.
    
    No. 844.
    Opinion Filed May 9, 1911.
    (115 Pac. 1103.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Jurisdiction—Case-Made—Making—Settlement —Notice. No jurisdiction is conferred on tliis court to review errors sought to be presented by a purported case-made, where the same discloses that it was not settled within three days after the date .of judgment or order appealed from, nor within a lawfully extended time, and there is no evidence that the ease-made was ever served upon the defendants in error or their counsel, nor that notice of the time and place of settlement was ever given, nor amendments suggested, nor that the parties were present, nor any showing made that these requirements were waived.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from Seminole County Court; T. S. Cobb, Judge.
    
    Action between J. R. McCants and others and Forest Anderson and Will O. White. From the judgment, McCants and others bring error.
    Dismissed.
    
      J. O. Davis, for plaintiffs in error.
   DUNN, J..

This case presents .error from the county court of Seminole county. A purported case-made has been filed .with the petition in error. From the papers embraced therein it appears that on February 16, 1909, judgment was entered, and plaintiff in error allowed 60 days within which to make and serve case-made on the defendants in error. There is no evidence whatsoever, accompanying the purported case-made, showing that it was ever served upon either the defendants in error or their counsel, or that any amendments were suggsted or allowed, or that any notice whatsoever was given of the time and place for its signing and settlement by the trial judge; nor is there any order embraced therein extending the time for the settlement of the same, and the certificate of the trial judge bears the date of May 1, 1909. Under these circumstances the proceeding in this court is a nullity, and we are without jurisdiction to review any of the questions which counsel seek to present. Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388; Devault et al. v. Merchants’ Exch. Co., 22 Okla. 624, 98 Pac. 342; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436; Ft. Smith & W. R. Co. v. State Nat. Bank of Shawnee, 25 Okla. 128, 105 Pac. 647; Carr v. Thompson et al., 27 Okla. 7, 110 Pac. 667; Lankford v. Wallace, 26 Okla. 857, 110 Pac. 672; Lathim v. Schlack, 27 Okla. 522, 112 Pac. 968.

The same is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.