Lamme v. Skelton

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Lamme v. Skelton

1923 OK 582, 233 P. 705, 106 Okla. 214, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 53

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 31, 1923

Docket11339

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 1923 OK 582 (Lamme v. Skelton) 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

Lamme v. Skelton, 1923 OK 582, 233 P. 705, 106 Okla. 214, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 53 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

ESTES. C.

Plaintiffs sued the defendants to cancel an oil and gas mining lease, and fog an accounting of royalties, and obtained judgment by default accordingly, on October 24, 3917. After the term, and' on February 6, 1918, defendants filed petition ■to vacate said judgment, complying with the statutes in all respects, and on December 24 1918, said default judgment, on hearing, ’was duly vacated and defendants permitted ito file their answer. At this time, plaintiffs gave notice of appeal and time •was duly allotted for preparing and serving case-made. Thereafter, and on October 20, 1919, the cause came on for trial and the plaintiffs refused to prosecute their action, and the cause was by the court dismissed. The record also shows thait the plaintiffs, iat this time, announced in open court thei- intention to stand upon .the original default judgment. Plaintiffs then filed motion for new trial, which was overruled, and perfected an appeal ito this court. The cause is now for hearing on the motion of defendants to dismiss the 'appeal for want of jurisdiction in this court.

1. After the default judgment was set aside and the issues were duly joined, the case came on for trial and the plaintiffs refused to proceed, or to introduce any evidence in snpporlt of their petition. They abandoned their cause of 'action and the court properly dismissed- same. They cannot now be heard to complain in this behalf.

2, 3. In Pennsylvania Company v. Potter et al., 108 Okla. 49, 233 Pac. 700, it is held that an order of the district court vacating and setting aside a judgment and granting the party & new| trial, provided tftor in section 5267, Rev. Laws 1910, section 810, Comp. Stat. 1921, is an order granting a new trial within the meaning of section 5236, Rev. Laws 1910, section 780, Comp. Stat. 1921, and is an appealable order reviewable by this court. This cases reverses a long line of decisions -to the contrary in this jurisdiction. The order vacating said default judgment was made on December 24, 1918. The petition in error and case-made were filed, in the Supreme Court on the 19th day of April, 1920, and nolt within the six months provision of section 798, Comp. Stat. 1921.

This court has no jurisdiction to entertain this cause on appeal, and the motion of defendants Ito dismiss same should be, and is, therefore, sustained.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

ESTES. C.

Plaintiffs sued the defendants to cancel an oil and gas mining lease, and fog an accounting of royalties, and obtained judgment by default accordingly, on October 24, 3917. After the term, and' on February 6, 1918, defendants filed petition ■to vacate said judgment, complying with the statutes in all respects, and on December 24 1918, said default judgment, on hearing, ’was duly vacated and defendants permitted ito file their answer. At this time, plaintiffs gave notice of appeal and time •was duly allotted for preparing and serving case-made. Thereafter, and on October 20, 1919, the cause came on for trial and the plaintiffs refused to prosecute their action, and the cause was by the court dismissed. The record also shows thait the plaintiffs, iat this time, announced in open court thei- intention to stand upon .the original default judgment. Plaintiffs then filed motion for new trial, which was overruled, and perfected an appeal ito this court. The cause is now for hearing on the motion of defendants to dismiss the 'appeal for want of jurisdiction in this court.

1. After the default judgment was set aside and the issues were duly joined, the case came on for trial and the plaintiffs refused to proceed, or to introduce any evidence in snpporlt of their petition. They abandoned their cause of 'action and the court properly dismissed- same. They cannot now be heard to complain in this behalf.

2, 3. In Pennsylvania Company v. Potter et al., 108 Okla. 49, 233 Pac. 700, it is held that an order of the district court vacating and setting aside a judgment and granting the party & new| trial, provided tftor in section 5267, Rev. Laws 1910, section 810, Comp. Stat. 1921, is an order granting a new trial within the meaning of section 5236, Rev. Laws 1910, section 780, Comp. Stat. 1921, and is an appealable order reviewable by this court. This cases reverses a long line of decisions -to the contrary in this jurisdiction. The order vacating said default judgment was made on December 24, 1918. The petition in error and case-made were filed, in the Supreme Court on the 19th day of April, 1920, and nolt within the six months provision of section 798, Comp. Stat. 1921.

This court has no jurisdiction to entertain this cause on appeal, and the motion of defendants Ito dismiss same should be, and is, therefore, sustained.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 582, 233 P. 705, 106 Okla. 214, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamme-v-skelton-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack