Case Name: COLTER et al. v. MARTIN et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1916-07-25
Citations: 60 Okla. 181
Docket Number: No. 7242
Parties: COLTER et al. v. MARTIN et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 181–181

Head Matter:
COLTER et al. v. MARTIN et al.
No. 7242.
Opinion Filed July 25, 1916.
Rehearing Denied September 8, 1916.
(159 Pac. 853.)
Appeal and Error — Record — Case-Made — Time of Filing.
Where a case-made shows it was not made and served within the time provided by law, and further fails to affirmatively show that the order extending the time within which to make and serve same was entered on the journals of the court pursuant to section 5317 or section 5324, Rev. Laws 1910, this court is without jurisdiction, and such appeal should be dismissed.
(Syllabus by Day, C.)
Error from Superior Court, Muskogee County; H. C. Thurman, Judge.
Action by R. T. Colter and others against T. H. Martin and others. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error.
Dismissed.
Stewart & Stewart, for plaintiffs in error,
Charles P. Gotwals and David A. Kline, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
DAY, O.
Defendants in error filed their supplemental motion to dismiss appeal in this cause on May 24, 1916, service of which was duly acknowledged by attorneys for plaintiffs in error. It appears that no response has been filed to this motion.
The ground set out in the motion is: That the ease-made fails to show the same was signed, settled, and served within the time-provided by law or within any valid and lawful extension thereof.
The case-made discloses that the order-extending the time in which to make, serve, and settle same was made on the 5th day of February, 1915, -and that said case-made was finally settled on the 3d day of March of the-same year.
The case-made fails to affirmatively show that the order extending the time within which to make and serve said appeal was entered in the journals of the court pursuant to section 5317 or section 5324, Rev. Laws-1910.
This court is therefore without jurisdiction of this appeal. Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Miller, 53 Okla. 149, 155 Pac. 864.
It therefore follows -that the motion to-dismiss should be sustained.
By the Court: It is so ordered.