Board of Commissioners of Day County v. F. M. Hubble

Oklahoma Supreme Court1899-02-11

8 Okla. 209

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court dismissed the petition in error for lack of jurisdiction because the case-made was not timely served; an order extending the service deadline issued after the original deadline had already passed is void and ineffective.

The Board of Commissioners of Day County appealed a judgment rendered against it in favor of F. M. Hubble on county warrants totaling $5,146.85 plus costs. The appeal was challenged on jurisdictional grounds because of delays in serving the case-made (a record prepared for appellate review). The original deadline for serving the case-made was 60 days from the April 23, 1898 judgment; the board obtained a 30-day extension on July 20, 1898. However, the case-made was not served until August 4, 1898, and not signed by the district judge until August 6, 1898—well after both deadlines had expired.

The court held that the July 20 extension order was void because it was issued 88 days after the original order, which exceeded the original 60-day period. A district court lacks authority to extend the deadline for serving a case-made after the initially granted time period has already elapsed. Although the trial judge's certificate stated the case was "duly served in due time," this certification cannot overcome the record's clear showing that service occurred outside the permitted timeframe.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Timeliness of extending a deadline for serving a case-made in an appeal
Authority of district court to extend service deadlines after expiration of original period
Effect of a trial judge's certificate that a case was duly served when the record shows otherwise
Jurisdictional requirements for appellate review based on proper service of case-made

Procedural posture

The Board of Commissioners appealed a district court judgment to the appellate court, but the defendant in error challenged the appellate court's jurisdiction based on untimely service of the case-made.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Opinion of the court by

Hainer J.:

This case comes here on appeal from the district court of Canadian county, on what purports to be a case-made. The defendant in error challenges the jurisdiction oí this court to consider this case, for the reason that the case-made was not served in time. It appears from the record in this case that on the 23d day of April, 1898, the defendant in error recovered judgment» upon a number of county warrants, against the-board of county commissioners of Day county, plaintiff in error, for the sum of $5,146.85 and costs of the action. The record further shows that, at the time the judgment was rendered, namely, on the 23d day of April, 1898, the defendant’s motion for a new trial was considered, and overruled by the court. To which judgment and ruling of the court the defendant at the time excepted, and was given 60 days in which to make and serve a case-made* It further -appears from the record that, on the 20th day of July, 1898, upon applic-atio-noftheplaintiffin error, an extension of time f-or3(>daysw-a,Sgranted for making and serving a case-made. The record further shows that the case-made was served upon the counsel for defendant in error on the 4th day of August, 1898, and the case-made was not settled and signed by the district judge until the 6th day of August, 1898. Hence, the record in this case shows that the order of July 20, 1898, allowing extension o-f time to make and serve the case-made, was not made by the judge -of the district court until 88 days after the original order of the court was made fixing and extending the time in which the case-made should be served. It is therefore a nullity. An order extending the time to serve a case-made must be made before the expiration of the statutory time for service in the first instance, or before the extension of time allowed by the court or judge has elapsed. The.district court or judge has no power or authority to make an order extending the time for settling and serving a case-made after the extensionof thetimeoriginallyallowed has elapsed and any order of extension after the expiration’ of such original order is absolutely void. (Abel v. Blair, 3 Okla. 399, 41 Pac. 342; Polson v. Purcell, 4 Okla. 93, 46 Pac. 578; Sigman v. Poole, 5 Okla. 677, 49 Pac. 944.)

Where it affirmatively appears in the record that the case was not served upon the defendant in error or his counsel within the time fixed by the court in its original order, -and after the time for serving the case had elapsed, the certificate of the trial judge to the case-made that it was “duly served in due time” is not sufficient. A certificate of the judge to the case-made imports verity of the preceding statements, but nothing more. (Brown v. Johnson, 14 Kan. 377.)

In Gimbel v. Turner; 36 Kan. 679, 14 Pac. 255, it was held that the certificate of the judge that the case was “duly served” will not overcome a specific recital in the record showing that the case was not served in due time. For the reasons herein stated, this court has no jurisdiction to review the case, and the petition in error is therefore dismissed.

Tarsney, J., having presided in the court below, not ■sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.