Case Name: CITY OF ENID v. McCANN
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1917-10-09
Citations: 67 Okla. 68
Docket Number: No. 9382
Parties: CITY OF ENID v. McCANN.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 67
Pages: 68–69

Head Matter:
CITY OF ENID v. McCANN.
No. 9382
Opinion Filed Oct. 9, 1917.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1917.
(171 Pac. 452.)
('Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Case-Made — Amendments — Time.
The time within which to suggest amendments to a case-made begins to run from the expiration of the time allowed within which to serve same, and not from the actual service thereof; and a case-made, signed and settled before the expiration of the time to suggest amendments, is a nullity.
Error from District Court, Garfield County ; James B. Cullison, Judge.
Action between the City of Enid and Lillian L. McCann. Judgment for the latter, and the former brings error.
Dismissed.
Chalmers B. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.
Charles N. Harmon, M. C. Garber, and P. T. McVay, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
OWEN, J.
Defendant in error moves to dismiss the appeal in this case for the rea son that an order was entered in the lower court extending the time for the service of case-made until July 1, 1917, and providing that plaintiff be given ten days after service of case-made for suggesting amendments, same to be settled on five days' notice. The case-made was actually served on June-18, 1917, and signed and settled on notice on July 6, 1917. It is urged by plaintiff in error that the time in which to suggest amendments began to run from the date of service, June 18th, and not from July 1st, the expiration off the time in which to serve the case-made. This case is ruled by the cases of Sov. Camp of W. O. W. v. Chumley, 58 Okla. 681, 161 Pac. 1175, and Frey v. McCune, 52 Okla. 648, 153 Pac. 109, and the motion must be sustained.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
All the Justices concur.