
    COTTINGHAM et al. v. COTTINGHAM.
    No. 16249
    Opinion Filed Sept. 15, 1925.
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — Case-Made — Invalid . Order Extending Time.
    An order granting an' extension of time in which to. serve case-made, made after the expiration o-f- the .time previously granted, is void ¡and confers upon tih-js'»eourt no. jurisdiction.. , -'.r- -
    
    Note. — See under (1) 4 O. J. p. 350* § 1991. "
    .Error from District Cqurt^.Ósa'gé'/Cpunfy;;, Jessq..^,:' W’d'rton,. Judge.'“ ',' V
    Action by Anna Lee Cottingham against Logan Cottingham and Charles B. Cottingham, -as special guardian. Judgment for plaintiff, from which defendants appeal.
    Dismissed.
    John W. Tillman, Fred A. Tillman, and Welcome D. Pierson, for plaintiffs in error.
    Grimstead, Scott, Hamilton & Gro-ss, for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This case is appealed from an order of the district court of Osage county made on the 29tih dayl of November, 1924, denying motion of plaintiff in epror to modify a former decree of the -court -as to the sum of money to be pa-id for -the support of a minor child. Sixty days from -the date of this order was given plaintiff in error in which' to make and serve case-made.

On the 21st d-a(y of February, 1925, plaintiff in e,rror was granted -an extension -of time of thirty days in which to serve case-made and defendant in error -moives -to -dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order of extension -is void, the time having expired in which the order could be made. Under the extension granted at the time o^der was made November 29, 1924, the time expired i-n which to serve case-made -on the 28th day of January, 1925, and subsequent to this time the trial court had no jurisdiction to make an order extending the time in which -to make and servo oatee-made, and such an order of extension confers upon this court no jurisdiction to hea.V the appeal. Case-made was served on the '6th clay o-f! March, 1925. Montooth et al. v Smith, 85 Okla. 43, 203 Pac. 214; Brittain v. Lorett, 85 Okla. 49, 204 Pac. 438; Bowers v. Lawrence, 88 Okla. 31, 210 Pac. 1023.

The appeal is dismissed.  