Case Name: BRITTAIN et al. v. LORETT et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1922-02-07
Citations: 85 Okla. 49
Docket Number: No. 11788
Parties: BRITTAIN et al. v. LORETT et al.
Judges: PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and JOHNSON, McNEILL, and ELTINO, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 49–49

Head Matter:
BRITTAIN et al. v. LORETT et al.
No. 11788
Opinion Filed Feb. 7, 1922.
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Case-Made — Invalid « Extension of Time — Dismissal.
An order purporting to grant an extension of time in which to make and serve case-made for appeal to the Supreme 'Court, made after the expiration of the time formerly allowed, is a nullity, and an appeal based upon service of a case-made thereunder will be dismissed.
Error from District Court, Payne County; Arthur Swank, Judge.
Action by A. A. Lorett and Josephine Lor-ett against R. E. Brittain and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.
Dismissed.
C. H. Shubert, for plaintiffs in error.
Springer & Wilson, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
NICHOLSON, J.
This case is presented on the motion of the defendants in error to dismiss the appeal. It .appears from the record that the motion for a new trial was overruled on the 11th day of May, 1920, and the defendants were granted 30 days from that date within which to make and serve a case-made, the plaintiffs were granted ten days thereafter within which to suggest amendments, ' said, case-made to be signed and settled on five days' notice by either party. The case-made was not served within the time allowed, and on June 14, -1920, the court made an order granting the defendants 90 days in addition to the time theretofore granted within which to make and serve said case-made. This latter order was invalid because made after the expiration of the time originally granted. The trial court was without jurisdiction to grant an extension on June 14, 1920, and the case cannot be considered by this court. Cripple Creek Oil Co. v. King, 76 Okla. 316, 185 Pac. 439; Cook v. Cook, 79 Okla. 222, 192 Pac. 215.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
PITCHFORD, V. C. J., and JOHNSON, McNEILL, and ELTINO, JJ., concur.