
    BYRD et al. v. HARRISON et al.
    
    No. 6988.
    Opinion Filed December 22, 1914.
    (145 Pac. 318.)
    1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Perfecting Appeal — Time—New Trial. Where a case is tried upon an agreed statement which eliminates all questions of fact, a motion for new trial is unauthorized by statute, and the time for making and serving a case for this court runs from the date of the judgment, unaffected by such motion or the order overruling the same.
    2. SAME — Extension—Validity. An order extending the time, and a case-made served in accordance therewith, after the expiration of the time specifically given by statute, are nullities, and a petition in error with such case-made attached gives this court no jurisdiction.
    ('Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District Court, Marshall County; Jesse M. Hatchett, Judge.
    
    Action between William Byrd and others and H. H. Harrison and o'thers. From the judgment, the parties first mentioned bring error.
    Dismissed.
    
      F. E. Kennamer and Chas. A. Goahley, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Rider & Hurt, for defendants in error.
   LOOFBOURROW, J.

This case was tried upon an agreed statement of facts in the court below, and the record discloses no other facts except those shown in the stipulation. Judgment was rendered May 27, 1913. A motion for new trial was filed May 28, 1913, and overruled May 28, 1914. Defendants in error ’'ave moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that more than six months have elapsed between the date of the rendition of the judgment and the filing of the petition in error and case-made.

Upon the authority of C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. City of Shawnee, 39 Okla. 728, 136 Pac. 591, and cases therein cited, the appeal is dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except KANE, C. J., absent and not participating.  