
    OSBORNE v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. et al.
    
    No. 4850.
    Opinion Filed March 16, 1915.
    (147 Pac. 301.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Making and Serving Case-made — 'Extension of Time — Judge Pro Tempore. After a judge pro tempore has ceased to sit as a court, he has no power to extend the time for making and serving- case-made in a.n action tried before him.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District -Court, Grady County; R. H. Hudson, Special Judge.
    
    Action by James K. Osborne against the Chicago, Rocli Island & Pacific Railway Company and -another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
    Dismissed.
    
      Bond & Melton, for plaintiff in error.
    
      O. O. Blalce, R. J. Roberts and W. H. Moore, for defendants in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause was tried in the district court of Grady county before a judge pro tempore, who-, after overruling plaintiff’s motion for a new trial granted -him 60 days in which to make and serve case-made. The case-made was not prepared -and served within that time, but before the expiration of that time plaintiff in error secured from the judge pro tempore an order extending the time within which to make and serve his •case, 60 days from the time theretofore granted. The case-made was served within the time designated within the second order. The defendant in error now moves to dismiss- the appeal for the reason that the judge pro tempore had no- power after he had 'ceased to sit in the case to make this second order, and, the case-made having been served out of time, the same is void. The contention of defendant in error is correct. Such has become .the established rule of procedure in this jurisdiction. Horner v. Goltry & Sons, 28 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111; Cantwell v. Patterson, 40 Okla. 497, 139 Pac. 517.

The proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed.  