Title: JONES v. MONTGOMERY
Citation: 137 Okla. 16, 1929 OK 220, 278 P. 26 6
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 28, 1929

JONES v. MONTGOMERY Annotate this Case JONES v. MONTGOMERY 1929 OK 220 278 P. 266 137 Okla. 16 Case Number: 19169 Decided: 05/28/1929 Supreme Court of Oklahoma JONES et al. v. MONTGOMERY. Syllabus ¶0 Appeal and Error--Case-Made--Invalidity of Order Extending Time Made After Expiration of Time Formerly Fixed. "An order extending the time for making and serving case-made, made after the expiration of the time fixed by a former order of the court or trial judge, is void." Petty et al. v. Foster et al., 122 Okla. 152 , 252 P. 836. Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 2. Error from District Court, Nowata County; Wayne W. Bayless, Judge. Action by T. R. Montgomery against L. K. and Rosa Jones and others, to recover on a redelivery bond formerly executed to the plaintiff in an action in replevin. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Dismissed. C. F. Gowdy and John F. Pendleton, for plaintiffs in error. Sams & Raymond, for defendant in error. HALL, C. ¶1 This was an action to recover on a redelivery bond given in a replevin action. The cause was tried and judgment was rendered on September 6, 1927. The plaintiff prevailed. A demurrer to the answer of defendants was sustained, and the defendants elected to stand upon their demurrer. Therefore, no motion for new trial was necessary. On that date, September 6, 1927, notice of appeal was regularly given, and a period of 60 days was fixed in which defendant might make and serve a case-made. ¶2 On November 7, 1927, an order attempting to extend the time in which to serve a case-made was granted. The order purported to extend the time for a period of 60 days. The order is regular in all respects, except that it was made two days after the expiration of the time fixed in the previous order for making and serving the case-made. The case-made was served under the last order. ¶3 The first question addressed to us is a motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the case-made was not made and served within the time provided by a valid order of the trial court. ¶4 By reason of an unbroken line of decisions of this court, the trial court, after November 5, 1927, lost jurisdiction to make an order extending the time in which to serve the case-made in this case, and the order or purported order made on November 7, 1927, was a nullity; and for such reason it necessarily follows that the appeal will have to be dismissed. ¶5 The appeal is dismissed.