TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nelson v. Pittsburg Mortgage Investment Co.

Nelson v. Pittsburg Mortg. Inv. Co., 1914 OK 333, 141 P. 1197
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 14, 1914
Docket
No. 6131
Judges
Kane
Citations
141 P. 11971914 OK 33343 Okla. 2081914 Okla. LEXIS 491
Disposition
Dismissed.
Summary
Error from District Court, Ellis County; G. A. Brown, Judge. Action between H. P. Nelson and the Pittsburg Mortgage Investment Company. From the judgment, Nelson 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, C. J.

This cause comes on to be heard upon the motion to dismiss upon the ground, among others, that “the order extending time to make, serve, and file a case-made was not itself filed in the district court until after the time therein granted and extended had expired; and the same was not a part of the case-made when served.” This ground is sufficient. In the case of Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Gish, Brook & Co., 23 Okla. 824 , 102 Pac. 708 , which was followed in Ellis et al. v. Carr, 25 Okla. 874 , 108 Pac. 1101 , it was held:

“Section 533 (section 4731) of the Code requires that all orders made out of court shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the journal of the court in the same manner as orders made in term. A purported order, extending the time in which to make and serve a case-made which has never been filed in the trial court as a part of the record therein, is not entitled to be made a part of the case-made, and is of no effect in this court. Since it fails affirmatively to show in the case-made that the purported order of April 21, 1908, was ever made by the court or judge, or that the same was ever filed in the court below or entered of record as required by said section of the statute, it is without force.”

For the reason stated, the motion to dismiss must be sustained.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1914: 21915: 11916: 21935: 119142026peak 1914 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Morris v. Caulk1914 OK 601, 144 P. 623
  2. Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Miller1916 OK 231, 155 P. 864
  3. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Farley1916 OK 488, 157 P. 300
  4. Waggoner v. Mounts1914 OK 359, 143 P. 1196
  5. American Nat. Bank of Wetumika v. Hale-Halsell Co.1935 OK 25, 41 P.2d 830
  6. State v. Coyle1915 OK CR 72, 150 P. 80

Most recent

  1. American Nat. Bank of Wetumika v. Hale-Halsell Co.1935 OK 25, 41 P.2d 830
  2. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Farley1916 OK 488, 157 P. 300
  3. Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Miller1916 OK 231, 155 P. 864
  4. State v. Coyle1915 OK CR 72, 150 P. 80
  5. Morris v. Caulk1914 OK 601, 144 P. 623
  6. Waggoner v. Mounts1914 OK 359, 143 P. 1196

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
Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. v. Gish, Brook & Co., 1909 OK 127, 102 P. 708 32
Ellis v. Carr, 1910 OK 66, 108 P. 1101 19

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