Case Name: MURPHEY v. FAVORS
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-01-09
Citations: 31 Okla. 162
Docket Number: No. 3262
Parties: MURPHEY v. FAVORS.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
MURPHEY v. FAVORS.
No. 3262.
Opinion Filed January 9, 1912.
(120 Pac. 641.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made — Powers of Special Judge. A special judge or a judge pro tempore lias no power, after he ceases to sit as a judge, to extend the time for making and serving a case-made; and, where he attempts to do so, his act is a nullity.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Logan County; Milton Brown, Judge pro tem.
Action between James Murphey and S. J. Favors. From the judgment, Murphey brings error.
Dismissed.
C. G. Horner, for plaintiff in error.
Burford & Burford and Devereux & Hildreth, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
HAYES, J.
The regular judge of the court below was disqualified to try this cause, and a special judge, elected for that purpose, presided at the trial. Upon the rendition and entry of final judgment, an order was made by the court extending the time for a period of 30 days for making and serving a case-made by plaintiff in error. The case-made was not made and served within the time granted by this order; but during said period of 30 days, another order was made by the special judge, granting a further extension of 60 days. During said period of 60 days, the regular judge made an order granting an extension for a further period of time, within which the case-made was served. But, since the order made by the regular judge was not made within the time originally granted by the court, such order is void, if-the special judge was, after he had ceased to sit as judge of the -court at the trial, without authority to extend the time for making and serving the case.
A motion to dismiss, directed against the validity of the case-made, upon the ground that the special judge was without such authority, has been filed by defendant in error, and it must be sustained; for it has been several times held by this court that, while a special judge or a judge pro tempore possesses the power to sign and settle the case-made after he has ceased to sit as judge, he has no power, after he ceases to sit as judge, to extend the time for its service, settlement and signing; and, where he attempts to do so, his act is a nullity. Casner v. Wooley, 28 Okla. 424, 114 Pac. 700; Horner v. Goltry & Sons, 23 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111.
This proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed.
All the Justices concur.