TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Maddox v. Drake

Maddox v. Drake, 1910 OK 344, 112 P. 969
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 16, 1910
Docket
No. 1253
Judges
Kane
Citations
112 P. 9691910 OK 34427 Okla. 4181910 Okla. LEXIS 223
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Expiration of Time. Where* the time granted by the trial court within which to make and serve a case-made expires before the case is made and served, the court thereafter is without power to grant a further extension for that purpose. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Appeal from Washita County Court. Action by Annie Drake against C. W. Maddox. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Kane

KANE, J.

The question involved in this case is raised by a motion to dismiss, filed by the defendant in error. The record shows that on' the 19th day of November, 1908, the cause below was duly submitted to a jury and tried, and a verdict rendered in favor of the' defendant in error, plaintiff below. That on the same day the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled on the second day of December, 1908, and the defendant was given 60 daj^s in which to make and serve a ease-made for the Supreme Court. That on the 2d day of February, 1909, the court extended the time within which to make and serve a case-made for a. period of 60 days, and within this period the case was made and served. The motion to dismiss must be sustained. The 60 days originally granted within which to make and serve a case-made ex *419 pired on tbe 1st day of February, 1909; thereafter the court was without jurisdiction to grant a further extension for that purpose.

The appeal is dismissed, at the cost of the plaintiff in error.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1912: 31913: 21914: 219122026peak 1912 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lovejoy, Russell & James v. Graham1912 OK 379, 124 P. 25
  2. City of Wagoner v. Gibson1912 OK 123, 121 P. 625
  3. Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Howenstine1914 OK 48, 138 P. 381
  4. Campbell v. Ruble1913 OK 579, 135 P. 1050
  5. Hurst v. Wheeler1913 OK 178, 130 P. 934
  6. Hengst v. Thompson Oil & Gas Co.1912 OK 586, 131 P. 1075

Most recent

  1. Talliaferro v. Exchange Bank of Perry1914 OK 160, 139 P. 955
  2. Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Howenstine1914 OK 48, 138 P. 381
  3. Campbell v. Ruble1913 OK 579, 135 P. 1050
  4. Hurst v. Wheeler1913 OK 178, 130 P. 934
  5. Hengst v. Thompson Oil & Gas Co.1912 OK 586, 131 P. 1075
  6. Lovejoy, Russell & James v. Graham1912 OK 379, 124 P. 25

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list