REMUND v. LIBERTY NAT. BANK OF WEATHERFORD

REMUND v. LIBERTY NAT. BANK OF WEATHERFORD
1938 OK 646
85 P.2d 396
184 Okla. 135
Case Number: 28530
Decided: 12/13/1938
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

REMUND et al.
v.
LIBERTY NAT. BANK OF WEATHERFORD, OKLA.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Review--Failure to Make and Serve Case--Made Within Time Legally Allowed.
Where plaintiff in error fails to make and serve case-made within the time allowed by statute or within the time as extended by the court and the assignments of error cannot be reviewed upon the record by transcript, there is nothing before this court for review. Harrell v. Cole, 168 Okla. 423, 33 P.2d 613.

Appeal from District Court, Custer County; W. P. Keen, Judge.

Action for damages by Frieda Remund et al. against the Liberty National Bank of Weatherford, Okla. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Dismissed.

Thomas Hudgens, for plaintiffs in error.
Andrew J. Welch, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The judgment from which the plaintiffs in error prosecute appeal was entered on October 19, 1937, when the court entered its order overruling the motion for new trial. On that date 60 days were given in which to make and serve case-made. That time expired December 18, 1937, and was extended until February 18, 1938. Thereafter no valid order was made by the court, although there was an attempt to enter an order extending the time on February 19, 1938. A motion to dismiss has been filed. The motion must be sustained. In Tanner v. Crawford, 80 Okla. 183, 195 P. 138, and Bass v. Dowd, 81 Okla. 212, 197 P. 513, this court held that such an order made after the expiration of time fixed by the statute or some valid order extending such time was void; and further that a case-made which Is not served within the time allowed by the statute or by some valid extension thereof is a nullity and serves no purpose to present errors contained in such case-made. Biggs v. Phipps, 175 Okla. 638, 54 P.2d 359: United Mining & Milling Co. v. First National Bank, 167 Okla. 638, 31 P.2d 550; Hawkins v. Steil, 172 Okla. 301, 45 P.2d 147. The order overruling the motion for new trial is no part of the record and cannot be reviewed by transcript; therefore the case-made is essential to present any error of which complaint is made. Harrell v. Cole, 168 Okla. 423, 33 P.2d 613.

¶2 The appeal is therefore dismissed.