
    ANDREWS v. GANT et al.
    No. 12972
    Opinion Filed Sept. 16, 1924.
    Appeal and Error — Invalidity of Case-Made —¡Lack of Notice of Settlement.
    Where tbe case-made was served upon counsel for tbe defendants in error, but tbe time for suggesting amendments was not waived, and no sufficient notice was served upon counsel for the defendants in error, or tbe defendants in error, of tbe time and place of settlement of case-made, and tbe case-made signed and settled after the expiration of verbal notice thereof so to do, and there is no stipulation signed by tbe parties or their attorneys that the’ purported case-made contained a true and correct copy of all tbe proceedings therein tbe case-made is a nullity and on such showing by defendants in error tbe appeal should be dismissed.
    (Syllabus by Jarman, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 2.
    Error from District Court, Stephens County; Cham Jones, Judge.
    Action by T. H. Andrews against W. H. Gant and others for dissolution of partnership and for an accounting. Judgment for defendants and plaintiff appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    A. M. Stewart and W. M. Williams, for plaintiff in error.
    Sandlin & Winans and Womack, Brown & Curd, for defendants in error.
   Opinion by

JARMAN, O.

This is an appeal from tbe district court of Stephens county, Olda. It is now before tbe court on tbe motion of defendants in error to dismiss tbe appeal for the reason that sufficient notice was not given defendants in error of tbe time and place for signing and settling tbe case-made, and that said purported ease-made was signed and settled after the expiration of the time mentioned in tbe verba! notice of such signing and settling, and not in tbe presence of a representative of defendants in error.

We have examined tbe case-made attar-bed to tbe petition in error herein, in connection with these objections to tbe case-made, and find it does not contain a stipulation signed by tbe parties, or their counsel, that it is a true, correct, and complete copy of all of tbe proceedings in said case; we find that it does rot contain a written notice to the defendants in error, or their attorneys, of tbe time and place of signing and settling of said' case-made, which was necessary to constitute a valid notice (Brown v. Marks, 45 Okla. 711, 141 Pac. 707); it does not contain any waiver by defendants to suggest amendments to the case-made, and also find that said purported case-made was signed by tbe trial judge on tbe 14tb day of January, 1922 —one day after tbe expiration of tbe verbal notice so to do, and does not show that defendants in error were represented at such • signing.

T’nder this state of the record, this court has no jurisdiction to review tbe errors assigned in this cause (McCann v. McCann. 96 Okla. 250, 221 Pac. 499), and tbe appeal Is therefore dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  