TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Co-Op. Gin & Elevator Co. v. Asbury

Co-Op. Gin & Elevator Co. v. Asbury, 1913 OK 650, 142 P. 802
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 18, 1913
Docket
No. 4016
Judges
Turner, Hayes, Kane, Loofbourrow, Williams
Citations
142 P. 8021913 OK 65040 Okla. 1411913 Okla. LEXIS 36
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Record—Case-Made—Settlement. A judge pro tempore upon overruling a motion for a new trial and rendering final judgment allowed a certain time for making and serving a case-made, and fixed a time within which amendments were to be suggested, and ordered that it be settled upon three days' notice by either party. Held, that the term of office of such judge expired after the last day fixed for suggesting amendments, and a ease-made settled by him after that time is a nullity. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from County Court, McClain County; C. G. Moore, Judge pro tern. Action between the Co-Op. Gin & Elevator Company and M. S. Asbury. From the judgment, the Company 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 — Turner

TURNER, J.

This cause was tried in the court below before a judge pro tempore, who, on December 4, 1911, overruled a motion for a new trial, and made and entered an order extending the time for plaintiff in error to make and serve a case-made for a period of^ 60 days from said date. In the same order plaintiff was given ten days thereafter to suggest amendments, the case-made to be signed and settled upon three day’s notice by either party. But the same was not signed and settled by the judge pro tempore until the 2d day of May, 1912. The motion of defendant in error to dismiss, on the ground that the judge pro tempore was without power to sign and settle the *142 case-made after the time fixed in the order had expired, is sustained.

City of Shawnee v. State Publishing Co. et al., 33 Okla. 363 , 125 Pac. 462 ;

Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Preston, 63 Kan. 819 , 66 Pac. 1050 .

HAYES, C. J., and KANE and LOOFBOURROW, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 319152026peak 1915 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Curlee v. Ruland1915 OK 406, 149 P. 1149
  2. Deloe v. McMahon1915 OK 82, 146 P. 220
  3. Cain v. King1915 OK 1077, 153 P. 1133

Most recent

  1. Cain v. King1915 OK 1077, 153 P. 1133
  2. Curlee v. Ruland1915 OK 406, 149 P. 1149
  3. Deloe v. McMahon1915 OK 82, 146 P. 220

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Preston, 66 P. 1050 (Kan. 1901) 19
City of Shawnee v. State Pub. Co., 1912 OK 515, 125 P. 462 10

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