Morgan v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

1949 OK 244, 212 P.2d 663, 202 Okla. 181, 1949 Okla. LEXIS 468
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 8, 1949
DocketNo. 33272
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 1949 OK 244 (Morgan v. Phillips Petroleum Co.) 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
Morgan v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 1949 OK 244, 212 P.2d 663, 202 Okla. 181, 1949 Okla. LEXIS 468 (Okla. 1949).

Opinion

DAVISON, C. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the court of common pleas of Tulsa county, Oklahoma, vacating a judgment theretofore rendered therein.

The only proposition necessary for determination by this court is as to the authority and propriety of the trial court to vacate, during the same term, the judgment theretofore rendered. In this jurisdiction that power is almost unlimited. Following an unbroken line of previous opinions, this court recently held, in the case of Tulsa Exchange Co. v. Kiester et al., 199 Okla. 440, 186 P. 2d 808, that:

“We are committed to the rule that the district court has full control over its judgments or orders during the term at which they are rendered, and may, for sufficient cause shown, in the exercise of its sound discretion, vacate or modify the same, and that where the motion to vacate or modify is filed during the term, the movant is not required to allege or prove a valid cause of action or defense. Long v. Hill, 193 Okla. 463, 145 P. 2d 434; Montague v. State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office, 184 Okla. 574, 89 P. 2d 283. And in the last-cited case we stated that the powers of said courts to vacate their judgments during the term in which they were rendered was not restricted by any statute. . .”

Also, see Mannah v. Robinson et al., 199 Okla. 551, 188 P. 2d 360; Tippins et al. v. Turben, 162 Okla. 136, 19 P. 2d 605.

By the order vacating the judgment, the parties were merely reinstated in the position they had occupied since the case was first at issue.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that- the court abused its discretion in vacating the judgment. In fact, the record reveals that there was a complete absence of an abuse of such discretion.

The order is affirmed.

ARNOLD, V. C. J., and WELCH, CORN, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, JOHNSON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur. HALLEY, J., concurs in conclusion.

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

Related

O'DARLING v. O'Darling
2008 OK 71 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2008)
Neumann v. Arrowsmith
2007 OK 10 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2007)
Gugello v. Select Specialty Hospital-Tulsa, Inc.
2006 OK CIV APP 102 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2006)
Stepp v. Stepp
1998 OK 18 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1998)
Schepp v. Hess
770 P.2d 34 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1989)
Goyne v. Almanza
1986 OK 69 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1986)
Matter of Estate of Goyne
1986 OK 69 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1986)
Jones v. Strain
603 P.2d 353 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1979)
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Smith
1978 OK 99 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1978)
Crabtree v. Crabtree
1966 OK 222 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1966)
Whittett v. Payne
367 P.2d 718 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1962)
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Jansen
1960 OK 117 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1960)
Hamburger v. Fry
1958 OK 287 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1958)
Riise v. Riise
1958 OK 225 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1958)
Boehs v. Manning
1957 OK 44 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1957)
Speake v. Lawrence
1955 OK 20 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1949 OK 244, 212 P.2d 663, 202 Okla. 181, 1949 Okla. LEXIS 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-phillips-petroleum-co-okla-1949.