TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

London Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummings

London & Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummings Et Al.

London Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Cummings, 1909 OK 23, 99 P. 654
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 26, 1909
Docket
No. 527
Judges
Hayes
Citations
99 P. 6541909 OK 2323 Okla. 1261909 Okla. LEXIS 332
Disposition
Dismissed.
Cited by 15
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Time of Making. The trial judge has no power, after the time fixed toy order .of the court at the time of overruling motion for new trial 'has elapsed, to extend the time for making and serving a case-made. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from, District Court, Pontotoc County; A. T. West, Fried Judge. Action by C. C. Cummings and others against the London & Lancashire Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. This( action was brought in the trial court by defendants in error against plaintiff in error to recover upon a fire insurance policy. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendants in error on the 4th day of May, .1908. On the 8th day of May, 1908, motion for a new trial was overruled, and plaintiff in error was given 60 days in which to prepare and serve a case-made. On the 22d day of July, 1908, after the expiration of the time originally granted by the court to prepare and serve a case-made, further time in which to prepare and serve a case- made until the 20th day of August, 1908, was granted by the trial judge to plaintiff in error. Service of the case-made was had on the 13th day of August, 1908. Defendants in error have filed a motion to strike from the files the case-made and dismiss the appeal, for the reason that the order of the court extending the time within which to make and serve a case-made was void, and the case-made was not served within the time originally fixed by the court, and that nothing is presented to this court for review.

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

Opinion of the Court — Hayes

Hayes, J.

(after stating the facts as above). It clearly appears that the order extending the time within which to prepare and serve the case-made was not granted until after the expiration of the time allowed by the court in which to prepare and serve the same. It is well settled that neither the court nor the judge thereof in vacation after the time granted in which to prepare and serve a case-made has expired has the power to extend the time previously granted by the court in which to make and serve a ease-made.

Abel v. Blair, 3 Okla. 399 , 41 Pac. 342 ;

United States v. C., O. & G. Ry. Co. et al., 3 Okla. 404 , 41 Pac. 729 ;

Sigman v. Poole, 5 Okla. 677 , 49 Pac. 944 ;

Blanchard v. United States, 6 Okla. 587 , 52 Pac. 736 ;

Board of County Commissioners of Day County v. Hubble, 8 Okla. 209 , 57 Pac. 163 ;

Noyes v. Tootle, 8 Okla. 505 , 58 Pac. 652 ;

Board of Commissioners of Garfield County v. Porter, 19 Okla. 173 , 92 Pac. 152 .

The assignment of error relied upon by plaintiff in error for reversal are such as can be presented only by ease-made. There is therefore nothing before this court for .review, and the motion is sustained, and the appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1910: 41911: 31912: 51913: 11914: 11916: 119102026peak 1912 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Carr v. Thompson1910 OK 196, 110 P. 667
  2. Haynes v. Smith119 P. 246 (Okla. 1911)
  3. Cowan v. Maxwell1910 OK 269, 111 P. 388
  4. Ellis v. Carr1910 OK 66, 108 P. 1101
  5. First Nat. Bank of Shawnee v. Oklahoma Nat. Bank of Shawnee1911 OK 121, 118 P. 574
  6. Soliss v. Davis, County Judge1911 OK 110, 114 P. 609

Most recent

  1. Briggs v. Kinzer1916 OK 590, 158 P. 447
  2. Talliaferro v. Exchange Bank of Perry1914 OK 160, 139 P. 955
  3. Antis v. Parson1913 OK 702, 138 P. 1020
  4. Hengst v. Thompson Oil & Gas Co.1912 OK 586, 131 P. 1075
  5. St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Rickey1912 OK 576, 126 P. 735
  6. Cunyan v. Clemmer1912 OK 562, 126 P. 578

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 7

DepthCaseCited by
United States, ex rel. v. C., O. G. R. R. Co., 1895 OK 83, 41 P. 729 37
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Garfield v. Porter, 1907 OK 98, 92 P. 152 29
Abel v. Blair, 41 P. 342 (Okla. 1895) 23
Blanchard v. United States, 1898 OK 5, 52 P. 736 12
Bd. of Comrs. Day Co. v. Hubble, 1899 OK 7, 57 P. 163 10
Sigman v. Poole, 49 P. 944 (Okla. 1897) 9
Noyes v. Tootle, 1899 OK 105, 58 P. 652 3

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