Whitaker v. Chestnut
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by STEWART, C.
The plaintiff, W. J. Whitaker, obtained a judgment against the defendant, H. M. Chestnut, in the district court of Mayes county by default. Afterwards, by special appearance, the defendant moved the court to vacate and set aside the judgment, which motion was by the court sustained. The- plaintiff attempts to appeal to this court by petition in error and transcript.
In Orr v. Fulton, 52 Okla. 621 , 153 Pac. 149 , it is said:
*123 “Á motion to vacate a judgment copied into a transcript constitutes no part of the record, and presents no question for review by the Supreme Court on appeal.”
In Menten v. Shuttee, 11 Okla. 381 , 67 Pac. 478 , the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma says:
“Motions presented to the trial court, the rulings thereon, and exceptions, are not properly part of the record, and can only be preserved and presented for review on appeal by incorporating the same into a bill of exceptions or case-made.”
Such is the uniform holding of this court, as shown by the following authorities: Tribal Developing Company v. White Bros., 28 Okla. 525 , 114 Pac. 736 ; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 372 , 112 Pac. 1040 ; Veverka v. Frank et al., 41 Okla. 142 , 137 Pac. 682 ; Grady County v. Schrock et al., 53 Okla. 144 , 155 Pac. 882 .
We have no discretion.
Following the authorities cited, the appeal is dismissed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.