Haynes v. Smith, Case Number: 1720
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
| Writing for the Court | WILLIAMS, J. |
| Citation | 119 P. 246,1911 OK 388,29 Okla. 703 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 1720 |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1911 |
| Parties | HAYNES et al. v. SMITH. |
1911 OK 388
119 P. 246
29 Okla. 703
HAYNES et al.
v.
SMITH.
Case Number: 1720
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided: November 14, 1911
¶0 1. APPEAL AN ERROR--Case-Made--Failure to File in Time. A case-made, not served within 3 days after the judgment sought to be reviewed is entered, or within the extension of time allowed by the court or judge, is a nullity, and will not be considered by this court.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR--Case-Made--Service--Extension of Time. An order granting an extension of time, made after the expiration of the time originally granted for making and serving a case-made, is void.
3. APPEAL AND ERROR--Petition in Error--Amendments. Within the time allowed for bringing proceedings in error in this court, amendments to a petition in error are generally allowed as of course.
(a.) After the expiration of such time, matters of form as a rule may be corrected, but no new allegations of error can be made.
4. APPEAL AND ERROR--"Errors of Law Occurring at the Trial"--"Trial." The overruling or sustaining of a demurrer to a pleading is not included in "errors of law occurring at the trial." Section 4196, St. Okla. Ter. 1893 (section 5825, Comp. Laws 1909).
(a.) A trial does not commence until an issue of fact is joined.
A. L. Emery, for plaintiffs in error
F. L. Boynton, for defendant in error
WILLIAMS, J.
¶1 On May 28, 1909, motion for new trial was overruled, and the defendants allowed 90 days within which to prepare and serve a case-made; the plaintiff to have 10 days thereafter within which to suggest amendments; the same to be settled upon five days notice of the time and place proposed therefor. On July 28, 1909, the defendants "are given 90 days in addition to the time heretofore granted in which to serve and file a case-made." On November 3, 1909, it was ordered by the trial judge "that the time granted to the defendants to make and serve a case-made for the Supreme Court be and is extended for a period of 60 days in addition to the time already granted." On February 23, 1910, it was ordered by the trial judge "that the time already granted to the defendants to make and serve a case-made for the Supreme Court be and the same is extended for a period of 30 days in addition to the time already granted." On March 24, 1910, it was ordered by the trial judge "that the time already granted to the defendants to make and serve a case-made for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 967
...cases to the same effect: Cogshall v. Spurry, 47 Kan. 448, 28 P. 154; Bruner v. Nordmier 48 Okla. 415 150 P. 159; Haynes v. Smith 29 Okla. 703, 119 P. 246. The Supreme Court of Ohio said, in Railway Co. v. Bailey, supra, that it had already been decided that an unsigned petition is a petiti......
-
Logan v. Logan, Case Number: 32389
...Gibson, 133 Okla. 196, 271 P 1026; Akin v. Bonfils, 47 Okla. 492, 150 P. 194; O'Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661 140 P. 141; Haynes v. Smith, 29 Okla 703, 119 P. 246. ¶6 The defendant also contends that the court erred in overruling her demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, but as she failed to stan......
-
Mo., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Mcclellan, Case Number: 3428
...appeal has expired. Smith v. Alva State Bank, post, 130 P. 916; Maggart v. Wakefield et al., 31 Okla. 751, 123 P. 1042; Haynes v. Smith, 29 Okla. 703, 119 P. 246. ¶4 No action of the trial court, therefore, can be reviewed in this proceeding which it is required shall be first presented to ......
-
Akin v. Bonfils, Case Number: 6151
...at the trial," for the very good reason that the error complained of did not in fact occur at or during the trial. Haynes et al. v. Smith, 29 Okla. 703, 119 P. 246; O'Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141; Mechanics' Sav. Bank v. Harding, 65 Kan. 655, 70 P. 655. ¶6 The second assignment o......
-
North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 967
...cases to the same effect: Cogshall v. Spurry, 47 Kan. 448, 28 P. 154; Bruner v. Nordmier 48 Okla. 415 150 P. 159; Haynes v. Smith 29 Okla. 703, 119 P. 246. The Supreme Court of Ohio said, in Railway Co. v. Bailey, supra, that it had already been decided that an unsigned petition is a petiti......
-
Logan v. Logan, Case Number: 32389
...Gibson, 133 Okla. 196, 271 P 1026; Akin v. Bonfils, 47 Okla. 492, 150 P. 194; O'Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661 140 P. 141; Haynes v. Smith, 29 Okla 703, 119 P. 246. ¶6 The defendant also contends that the court erred in overruling her demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, but as she failed to stan......
-
Mo., O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Mcclellan, Case Number: 3428
...appeal has expired. Smith v. Alva State Bank, post, 130 P. 916; Maggart v. Wakefield et al., 31 Okla. 751, 123 P. 1042; Haynes v. Smith, 29 Okla. 703, 119 P. 246. ¶4 No action of the trial court, therefore, can be reviewed in this proceeding which it is required shall be first presented to ......
-
Akin v. Bonfils, Case Number: 6151
...at the trial," for the very good reason that the error complained of did not in fact occur at or during the trial. Haynes et al. v. Smith, 29 Okla. 703, 119 P. 246; O'Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141; Mechanics' Sav. Bank v. Harding, 65 Kan. 655, 70 P. 655. ¶6 The second assignment o......