Title: HANOVER STATE BANK v. HENKE
Citation: 15 Okla. 631, 1905 OK 75, 83 P. 92 6
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 6, 1905

HANOVER STATE BANK v. HENKE Annotate this Case LIDECKER TOOL CO. v. COGHILL Constable. 1912 OK 808 128 P. 680 35 Okla. 134 Case Number: 2848 Decided: 12/03/1912 Supreme Court of Oklahoma LIDECKER TOOL CO. v. COGHILL, Constable. Syllabus ¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Case-Made--Extension of Time--Special Judge--Judge Pro Tem. A special judge, or a judge pro tempore, has 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. J. W. Swarts, for plaintiff in error. Ezzard & Holtzendorff, for defendant in error. WILLIAMS, J. ¶1 On January 11, 1911, the motion for a new trial was overruled by John Q. Adams, the judge pro tempore, who tried the cause in the lower court. At that time the plaintiff in error (plaintiff below) was granted an extension of 60 days in which to prepare and serve a case-made. On March 3, 1911, the said John Q. Adams, as judge pro tempore, again extended the time for 60 days in which to prepare and serve a case-made. The case-made was served on May 8, 1911, and settled by the said John Q. Adams, the special judge, on May 22, 1911. It is settled that a special judge, or judge pro tempore, after he has ceased to sit as a judge, has no power to extend the time to serve a case-made, and "where he attempts to do so his act is a nullity." Murphey v. Favors, 31 Okla. 162 , 120 P. 641; Casner v. Wooley, 28 Okla. 424 , 114 P. 700; Horner v. Goltry & Sons, 23 Okla. 905 , 101 P. 1111; City of Shawnee v. Farrell, 22 Okla. 652 , 98 P. 942. The proceeding in error is therefore dismissed. ¶2 All the Justices concur.