Bradley v. Farmers' State Bank

SHARP, J. Upon the- call of the case for trial in the court below ,the regulan county judge of Sequoyah county made known his -disqualifications to- preside at -the trial, and thereupon it was agreed that Wilson O. Brut-on, a member of the bar of Sequoyah -county should act as special judge. The ease being tried, a verdict wias returned by the jury in favor of the .plaintiff, and defendant on the same day duly moved the court for a new trial. This motion came on to- be heard on November 1, 1913, and, being overruled, the defendant asked and was granted a 90-day extension of time within which to prepare and serve a case-made for appeal. On January 19, 1914, said Wilson O. Bruton, claiming still to -act 'as special county judge, granted tire -defendant 30 days’ -additional time in which to prepare and serve his case-made:, and again, on -the 27th day of February following, made a like order extending the time for 30 days additional. The ease-made was served on the- attorneys for plaintiff March. 28, 1914, or beyond the time fixed in the original order of November 1st. A motion to dismiss the appeal has been filed in this court on the- ground that the oase-miade was not •served within the time originally fixed by the special judge, and ■that ©aid special judge was without authority to- grant an extenIsion -of time after -he had ceased to sit as a judge in said ease. The motion must be sustained. The precise question has been before this court on numerous occasions, and we have uniformly held that, after a -special judge or a judge pro tempore has *765 'ceased to sit 'as a court, be baa no power to extend tbe time for making and serving a, case-made in an action tried before bim; and that, where he does so, his act is a nullity. City of Shawnee v. Farrell, 22 Okla. 652, 98 Pac. 942; Harner v. Goltry & Sons. 23 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111; Casner v. Wooley, 28 Okla. 424, 114 Pac. 700; Murphy v. Favors, 31 Okla. 162, 120 Pac. 641; City of Shawnee v. State Pub. Co., 33 Okla. 363, 125 Pac. 462, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 616; Cantwell v. Patterson et al., 40 Okla. 496, 139 Pac. 517. Tbe proceeding in error, for tbe reason stated, is dismissed. All the Justices concur.