Perry v. Hoblit

PERRY Et Al. v. HOBLIT

Perry v. Hoblit, 1912 OK 812, 129 P. 693

Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided: December 3, 1912
Docket: No. 4509
Judges: Piayes, Turner, Williams, Dunn, Kane
Citations: 129 P. 6931912 OK 81235 Okla. 3621912 Okla. LEXIS 582

Cited by 2

Syllabus

1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Extension of Time. Neither the court nor the judge thereof in vacation, after the time prescribed by the statute or granted by the court within which to prepare and serve a case-made has expired, has power to extend the time fixed by statute or previously granted by the court in which to make and serve a ease-made. 2. SAME. A judge of the district court has no power to extend the time to make a case-made when he is out of the state, and an order so made is absolutely void. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Summary

Erroi' from District Court, Grady County; Frank M. Bailey, Judge. Action by Oscar Perry and others against D. L. Hoblit. From the judgment, Perry and others bring error. Dismissed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Piayes

PIAYES, J.

This proceeding in error is prosecuted upon petition in error and case-made. A motion to dismiss same has been filed by defendant in error, urging a dismissal thereof upon the ground that the case-made is void for two reasons. On the 12th day of June, A. D. 1912, the trial court made an order extending the time within which plaintiffs in error could serve their case-made for a period of 60 days from that date. This period of time expired on the 11th day of August. The case-made was not served during said period of time, and no further extension of time was made within that period. On the 12th day of August a second order of extension was made, and subsequently the case-made was served within the time attempted by this second order *363 to be granted; but the second order of extension was void, for the reason that it was not made within the statutory three days’ time for serving the case-made, nor within any time extended during such.period.

Soliss v. Davis, 28 Okla. 496 , 114 Pac. 609 .

A further reason why the second order made on August 12th is void is that at the time of making same the trial judge was without the state, being at that time in the state of Arkansas.

Blanchard v. U. S., 6 Okla. 587 , 52 Pac. 736 .

The motion to dismiss should be, and is, sustained.

TURNER, C. J., and WILLIAMS and DUNN, JJ., concur; KANE, J., not participating.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts2

Relies on it most ⓘ

Dunlap v. Rumph1914 OK 456, 143 P. 329
Martin Lumber Co. v. Thomas1938 OK 386, 80 P.2d 257

Most recent

Martin Lumber Co. v. Thomas1938 OK 386, 80 P.2d 257
Dunlap v. Rumph1914 OK 456, 143 P. 329

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Blanchard v. United States, 1898 OK 5, 52 P. 736	12
	Soliss v. Davis, Cnty. Judge, 1911 OK 110, 114 P. 609	10

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list