BOSWELL v. INGRAM

BOSWELL v. INGRAM
1924 OK 1048
230 P. 909
104 Okla. 240
Case Number: 13512
Decided: 11/25/1924
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BOSWELL
v.
INGRAM et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Case-Made--Extension of Time--Power of Assigned Judges. A district judge assigned to hold court outside of his district has no authority after the expiration of the time fixed in the order of assignment to grant an extension of time for preparing and serving case-made in the case tried before him under such assignment.

W. L. Boswell and H. M. Carr, for plaintiff in error.
Bowling & Farmer, for defendants in error.

JONES, C.

¶1 This is an appeal from the district court of Garvin county, Okla. The cause was tried on the 21st day of December, 1921, before the Hon. C. C. Smith, judge assigned to Pauls Valley, Garvin county, Okla., to hold a term of court, commencing on the day of December, 1921, and ending on the 24th day of December, 1921. The record discloses that Judge Smith was a resident of Guthrie, Logan county, Okla., and the presiding judge of that judicial district. The petition in error with case-made attached was filed in this court on the day of June, 1922. Defendants in error filed motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the case-made was not served within the time allowed by a valid order of the court. The record discloses that judgment complained of was rendered on the 24th day of December, 1921, at which time the assigned judge, to wit, C. C. Smith, granted plaintiff 90 days in which to prepare and serve case-made. On the 20th day of March, 1922, Judge C. C. Smith granted plaintiff in error 40 days additional time in which to prepare and serve case-made. The case-made was served on the 28th day of April, 1922, which was after the expiration of the 90 days originally given plaintiff in error in which to prepare and serve case-made. The last extension of time granted being a nullity, and the appeal not being filed until after the expiration of the 90 days originally given, is insufficient to give this court jurisdiction of the cause. Bowles v. State, 19 Okla. Crim. 454, 200 P. 558; Smiser v. State, 19 Okla. Crim. 86, 198 P. 110; Johnston v. State, 6 Okla. Crim. 354, 118 P. 674. In these cases this court announced the following rule:

"A district judge assigned to hold court outside of his district has no authority after the expiration of the time fixed in the order of assignment to grant an extension of time for preparing and serving case-made in the case tried before him under such assignment."