Case Name: LAWSON et al. v. ZEIGLER
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-07-23
Citations: 33 Okla. 368
Docket Number: No. 2464
Parties: LAWSON et al. v. ZEIGLER.
Judges: TURNER, C.'J., and HAYES, KANE, 'and DUNN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
LAWSON et al. v. ZEIGLER.
No. 2464.
Opinion Filed July 23, 1912.
(125 Pac. 724.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Record—Case-Made—Time for Making and Serving. An order extending tlie time for making and serving a ease-made, made after the expiration of the time therefore fixed by order of the court or trial judge, is void.
(a) A "ease-made” made and served within the time fixed by such void order is a nullity and cannot be considered as a ease-made by this court.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from District Court, McIntosh County; Preslie B. Cole, Judge.
Action between W. H. Lawson and others and Frederick Zeigler. From the judgment, Lawson and others bring error.
Dismissed.
B. J. Van Court, for plaintiffs in error.
W. C. Reeves, amicus curiae.

Opinion:
WILLIAMS, J.
On December 14, 1910, the motion for a new trial was overruled. It was ordered that defendants (plaintiffs in error) be allowed 30 days to make and serve a case-made. This 30 days expired with the 13th day of January,'1911. The case-made was served on January 14, 1911, one day after the expiration of the time allowed for making and serving the same. On February 6, 1911, 24 days after the expiration of the time allowed for making and serving the case-made, the attorneys for the respective parties stipulated that the plaintiffs in error should have 30 days after the 8th day of February, 1911, in which to have the case-made settled and signed. On February 1, 1911, the court entered an order that an extension 'of time be granted, to wit, 30 days from February 8, 1911, in which to have the case-made served.
That an order made after the expiration of the time allowed for making and serving a case-made, extending the time for such purpose, is a nullity, and such case-made served out of such time cannot be considered on appeal, has been settled by this court. Lovejoy, Russell & James v. Graham et al., ante, 124 Pac. 25, and authorities therein cited.
It follows that this proceeding in error must be dismissed.
TURNER, C.'J., and HAYES, KANE, 'and DUNN, JJ., concur.