Title: HUGHES v. MARTIN.
Citation: 144 P. 35 6, 1914 OK 534, 43 Okla. 710
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: November 10, 1914

HUGHES v. MARTIN. Annotate this Case HUGHES v. MARTIN. 1914 OK 534 144 P. 356 43 Okla. 710 Case Number: 5597 Decided: 11/10/1914 Supreme Court of Oklahoma HUGHES v. MARTIN. Syllabus ¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR--Case-Made--Time for Service. A case-made, not served within the time allowed by law, or extended by a valid order of court, is a nullity, and cannot be considered by the Supreme Court on appeal. 2. SAME--Presentation for Review--Certificate to Transcript. This court will not review errors assigned upon the record in the absence of a certificate of the clerk showing that the same is a full, true, and correct transcript of the record. Biddison & McCollom, for plaintiff in error. Orton & McNeill, for defendant in error. BLEAKMORE, J. ¶1 This case presents error from the county court of Pawnee county, and now comes on to be heard upon a motion of defendant in error to dismiss the appeal. On March 29, 1913, motion for new trial was overruled, and plaintiff in error allowed 90 days in which to prepare and serve a case-made. Thereafter, on the 25th day of June, 1913, plaintiff in error was allowed an additional 30 days within which to prepare and serve his case, making a total of 120 days from March 29, 1913. This time expired on the 27th day of July, 1913, and on the following day the trial court entered its order attempting to extend the time an additional 30 days. This last order of the trial court was void for want of jurisdiction, and the case-made, not being prepared and served within the time allowed by a valid order of the court, is a nullity. Campbell v. Ruble, 40 Okla. 48 , 135 P. 1050. The errors assigned cannot be considered upon a transcript of the record, for the reason that the certificate of the clerk is insufficient in that it does not show that the transcript attached to the petition in error "is a full, true, and correct transcript of the record." Rall Grain Co. v. First State Bank of McQueen, 39 Okla. 786 , 136 P. 744. It follows, therefore, that the motion to dismiss must be sustained; and it is so ordered. ¶2 All the Justices concur.