Case Name: ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. RICKEY
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-09-11
Citations: 33 Okla. 481
Docket Number: No. 3871
Parties: ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. RICKEY.
Judges: TURNER, C. J., and WILLIAMS, KANE, and DUNN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. RICKEY.
No. 3871.
Opinion Filed September 11, 1912.
(126 Pac. 735.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Delay in Service. A purported case-made, which is not served within three days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered, or within an extension of time duly allowed, is a nullity, and cannot be considered by this court.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from District Court, Washita County; Jas. R. Tolbert, Judge.
Action between the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company and W. E. Rickey, doing business as the Casebeer Grain Company. From the judgment, the Railroad Company brings error.
Proceeding in error dismissed.
W. F. Evans, R. A. Kleinschmidt, and J. H. Grant, for plaintiff in error.'
T. A. Edwards, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
HAYES, J.
Motion for new trial in this case was overruled on October 28, 1911. At that time plaintiff in error was granted an extension of 60 days in which to serve a case-made, 30 days within which to supersede the judgment, and 120 days within which to file its appeal in this court. On December 11, 1911, an extension of time for a further period of 60 days was granted for service of case-made. On February 2, 1912, an order was made granting an extension of 60 days from the date fixed in the original order for filing the case in this court, but no extension of time for service of the case-made was granted. The case-made was served on March 20, 1912.
It follows that, since the case-made was not served within the time fixed by the statute, nor within any extension of time made within the statutory period, the case-made is void, and the cause must be dismissed. Cunyan v. Clemmer, ante, 126 Pac. 578; Cowan v. Maxwell, 27 Okla. 87, 111 Pac. 388; London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummings et al., 23 Okla. 126, 99 Pac. 654; Bettis v. Cargile et al., 23 Okla. 301, 100 Pac. 436.
TURNER, C. J., and WILLIAMS, KANE, and DUNN, JJ., concur.