Holt v. Spicer

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Holt v. Spicer

1917 OK 291, 166 P. 149, 67 Okla. 60, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 337

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 6, 1917

Docket7914

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1917 OK 291 (Holt v. Spicer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holt v. Spicer, 1917 OK 291, 166 P. 149, 67 Okla. 60, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 337 (Okla. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

RUMMONS, C.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an order of the district court of Mayes county, overruling his motion to vacate a judgment of said court in favor of the defendant below because of irregularity in obtaining said *61 judgment. Pending this appeal, plaintiff appealed from an order of said district court overruling his motion for a new trial of said cause. This proceeding in error, No. 7710 in this court, was determined adversely to the plaintiff; the judgment of the trial court being affirmed. Holt v. Spicer, 65 Okla. 17, 162 Pac. 686. In this case, this court held that the tax deed upon which plaintiff based his cause of action in the court below ’was void upon its face, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

By this opinion we are foreclosed the consideration of any of the irregularities in the rendition off the judgment below complained of by the plaintiff. Section 5271, Rev. Laws 1910, is as follows:

_ “A judgment shall not be vacated on motion or petition, until it is adjudged that there is a valid defense, .to the action on which the judgment is rendered; or, if the plaintiff seeks its vacation, that there is a valid cause of action; and where a judgment is modified, al liens and securities obtained under it shall be preserved .to the modified judgment.”

See Ames v. Brinsden, 25 Kan. 746.

It having been determined by this court -I hat the plaintiff has no valid cause o|f action. he is not entitled to a vacation of the judgment rendered against him, even though it was obtained irregularly.

■ The judgment of the trial court should therefore be affirmed.

By .the Court: It is so ordered.

THACKER, .1.,

does not think that the opinion in this case is a full and complete answer to the proposition for which the plaintiff in error contends, although right in .the conclusion reached, and therefore limits his concurrence in the approval of the Commissioner’s opinion to such conclusion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

RUMMONS, C.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an order of the district court of Mayes county, overruling his motion to vacate a judgment of said court in favor of the defendant below because of irregularity in obtaining said *61 judgment. Pending this appeal, plaintiff appealed from an order of said district court overruling his motion for a new trial of said cause. This proceeding in error, No. 7710 in this court, was determined adversely to the plaintiff; the judgment of the trial court being affirmed. Holt v. Spicer, 65 Okla. 17, 162 Pac. 686. In this case, this court held that the tax deed upon which plaintiff based his cause of action in the court below ’was void upon its face, and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

By this opinion we are foreclosed the consideration of any of the irregularities in the rendition off the judgment below complained of by the plaintiff. Section 5271, Rev. Laws 1910, is as follows:

_ “A judgment shall not be vacated on motion or petition, until it is adjudged that there is a valid defense, .to the action on which the judgment is rendered; or, if the plaintiff seeks its vacation, that there is a valid cause of action; and where a judgment is modified, al liens and securities obtained under it shall be preserved .to the modified judgment.”

See Ames v. Brinsden, 25 Kan. 746.

It having been determined by this court -I hat the plaintiff has no valid cause o|f action. he is not entitled to a vacation of the judgment rendered against him, even though it was obtained irregularly.

■ The judgment of the trial court should therefore be affirmed.

By .the Court: It is so ordered.

THACKER, .1.,

does not think that the opinion in this case is a full and complete answer to the proposition for which the plaintiff in error contends, although right in .the conclusion reached, and therefore limits his concurrence in the approval of the Commissioner’s opinion to such conclusion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1917 OK 291, 166 P. 149, 67 Okla. 60, 1917 Okla. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holt-v-spicer-okla-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack