Case Name: BANK OF HAWORTH et al. v. MARTIN
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1915-06-01
Citations: 49 Okla. 335
Docket Number: No. 6956
Parties: BANK OF HAWORTH et al. v. MARTIN.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 335–336

Head Matter:
BANK OF HAWORTH et al. v. MARTIN.
No. 6956.
Opinion Filed June 1, 1915.
Rehearing Denied October 19, 1915.
(151 Pac. 1167.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Service—Dismissal. The party desiring to have a judgment or order reviewed by the Supreme Court must prepare and serve his case-made on the opposite party within the time prescribed by law after the judgment or order is entered; and, unless the case is served within that time, or within an extension of time allowed by the court or judge thereof within such time, the case will not be considered.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from District Court, McCurtain County; Summers Hardy, Judge.
Action by B. F. Martin against Bank of Haworth and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and- defendants bring error.
Dismissed.
Gore, Hosey & Jones, for plaintiffs in error.'
Armstrong & Etheridge,-for defendant in error.

Opinion:
KANE, C. J.
This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in error upon the ground that the case-made herein was not made and served within the 15 days after final judgment was rendered, allowed by statute, nor within an extensión of time thereafter granted by the trial court, or the judge thereof. The- motion to dismiss is accompanied by a showing, which is not controverted, to the effect that the verdict in said cause was rendered on the 8th day of September, 1913; that the motion for new trial was filed on the following day; that thereafter, on the 11th day of May, 1914, said motion for new trial was by the court overruled; that thereafter, on the 11th day of June, 1914, the defendant in error accepted service of case-made; that there was no order made by the court or the- judge thereof extending the time in which to make and servé case-made, and the same was not served within the 15 days allowed by section 5242, Rev. Laws 1910.
The contention of the defendant in error is well taken, and the motion to dismiss must be sustained. It is well settled that the party desiring to have a judgment or order reviewed by the Supreme Court must prepare and serve his case-made on thp opposite party within the time prescribed by law after the judgment or order is entered; and unless the case is served within that time, or within an extension of time allowed by the court or judge thereof within such time, the case will not be considered. Fife v. Cornelius et al., 35 Okla. 402, 124 Pac. 957.
For the reason stated, the motion to dismiss is sustained.
All the Justices concur.