
    MURPHEY v. FAVORS.
    No. 3262.
    Opinion Filed January 9, 1912.
    (120 Pac. 641.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made — Powers of Special Judge. A special judge or a judge pro tempore lias no power, after he ceases to sit as a judge, to extend the time for making and serving a case-made; and, where he attempts to do so, his act is a nullity.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from Superior Court, Logan County; Milton Brown, Judge pro tem.
    
    Action between James Murphey and S. J. Favors. From the judgment, Murphey brings error.
    Dismissed.
    C. G. Horner, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Burford & Burford and Devereux & Hildreth, for defendant in error.
   HAYES, J.

The regular judge of the court below was disqualified to try this cause, and a special judge, elected for that purpose, presided at the trial. Upon the rendition and entry of final judgment, an order was made by the court extending the time for a period of 30 days for making and serving a case-made by plaintiff in error. The case-made was not made and served within the time granted by this order; but during said period of 30 days, another order was made by the special judge, granting a further extension of 60 days. During said period of 60 days, the regular judge made an order granting an extension for a further period of time, within which the case-made was served. But, since the order made by the regular judge was not made within the time originally granted by the court, such order is void, if-the special judge was, after he had ceased to sit as judge of the -court at the trial, without authority to extend the time for making and serving the case.

A motion to dismiss, directed against the validity of the case-made, upon the ground that the special judge was without such authority, has been filed by defendant in error, and it must be sustained; for it has been several times held by this court that, while a special judge or a judge pro tempore possesses the power to sign and settle the case-made after he has ceased to sit as judge, he has no power, after he ceases to sit as judge, to extend the time for its service, settlement and signing; and, where he attempts to do so, his act is a nullity. Casner v. Wooley, 28 Okla. 424, 114 Pac. 700; Horner v. Goltry & Sons, 23 Okla. 905, 101 Pac. 1111.

This proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed.

All the Justices concur.  