HUDGENS v. STATE ex rel. MILLS Co. Atty.

HUDGENS v. STATE ex rel. MILLS Co. Atty.
1922 OK 9
206 P. 200
84 Okla. 249
Case Number: 12495
Decided: 01/17/1922
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

HUDGENS
v.
STATE ex rel. MILLS, Co. Attorney.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Case-Made--Time to Suggest Amendments.
The time within which to suggest amendments to a case-made begins to run from the expiration of the time allowed within which to serve same, and not from the actual service thereof; and a case-made signed and settled before the expiration of the time to suggest amendments is a nullity.

Error from District Court, Greer County; T. P. Clay, Judge.

Action between D. A. Hudgens and the State, on the relation of M. H. Mills, county attorney of Greer county. From the judgment, the former brings error. Dismissed.

Percy Powers, for plaintiff in error.
M. H. Mills, Co. Arty., for Greer County.
W. B. Garrett, special counsel for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, J.

¶1 On October 5, 1921, the defendant in error filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, to which motion no response has been filed. The third ground of the motion is:

"That the case-made herein was not signed, served and settled as required by law, in that the time for serving said case-made expired on June 25, 1921, while the record was served on June 1, 1921, and the same was signed and settled on June 20, 1921, and before the ten days allowed by the court to this defendant in error to make and suggest amendments had expired."

¶2 These grounds are fully sustained by the record, and must be sustained. In the case of Sharp v. Sharp et al., 80 Okla. 67, 194 P. 100, in passing upon the identical question raised by the motion herein, this court said:

"The time within which to suggest amendments to a case-made begins to run from the expiration of the time allowed within which to serve same, and not from the actual service thereof; and a case-made, signed and settled before the expiration of the time to suggest amendments, is a nullity."

¶3 To the same effect, see Bockhaus v. Aetna Building & Loan Ass'n, 79 Okla. 270, 192 P. 1094; Watson v. Shaffer, 77 Okla. 1, 184 P. 1016; Cummings v. Tate, 47 Okla. 54, 147 P. 304; Wilson v. Branigan, 67 Okla. 67, 168 P. 819; City of Enid v. McCann, 67 Okla. 68, 171 P. 452.

¶4 It is therefore ordered that the appeal herein be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.