# Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · November 18, 1913 · 39 Okla. 728

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3812751

## Case

- **Full name:** Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 18, 1913
- **Citations:** 39 Okla. 728; 136 P. 591; 1913 OK 647; 1913 Okla. LEXIS 576
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Thacker
- **Judges:** Thacker
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3812751

## Opinion text

*729
Opinion by
THACKER, C.
This case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts, judgment was entered on August 19, 1911, motion for new trial was filed on August 22, 1911, and on September 2, 1911, the motion for new trial was overruled and an order entered purporting to extend the time in which case for this court might be made and served to September 7, 1911. On September 6, 1911, case-made was served, settled, and signed; and the jurisdiction of this court depends upon whether this order of September 2, 1911, was within the three days specifically allowed by statute (section 4444, St. Okla. 1893, now changed by section 5242, Rev. Laws 1910, to 15 days) within which a case might be made and served; and this question, in turn, depends upon whether the appeal should have been from the judgment of from the order overruling the motion for new trial, which, in turn, depends upon whether a motion for new trial is authorized by the statute when all questions of fact have been eliminated by agreed statement of facts
These questions seem to be definitely settled by the decisions of this court; and it thus appears: (1) That a motion for new trial is unauthorized in such cases, and the appeal should have been from the judgment
(Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County v. Porter et al.,
19 Okla. 173 , 92 Pac. 152 ;
Schnitsler v. Green,
5 Kan. App. 656 , 47 Pac. 990 ;
Ritchie et al. v. Kansas N. & D. Ry.,
55 Kan. 36 , 39 Pac. 718 ); and (2) that, the time within which to make and serve a case having expired on the expiration of the third day after such judgment without order extending the same, the case-made was not served in time, and this court has not acquired jurisdiction.
Boulanger v. Midland Valley Mercantile Co.,
36 Okla. 120 , 128 Pac. 113 ;
Reed v. Woolly,
31 Okla. 783 , 123 Pac. 1121 ;
Doorley v. Buford & George Mfg. Co.,
5 Okla. 594 , 49 Pac. 936 ;
Williams v. New State Bank,
38 Okla. 328 , 132 Pac. 1087 ;
American Nat. Bank of McAlester et al. v. Mergenthaler Linotype Co.,
31 Okla. 533 , 122 Pac. 507 .
The appeal should be dismissed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3812751. Public record. Not legal advice.