TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Pierce Coal Co. v. Walker

PIERCE COAL CO. Et Al. v. WALKER

Pierce Coal Co. v. Walker, 1912 OK 813, 128 P. 493
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 3, 1912
Docket
No. 4028
Judges
Hayes
Citations
128 P. 4931912 OK 81335 Okla. 1871912 Okla. LEXIS 540
Disposition
Dismissed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Final Judgment — What Constitutes. An order made vacating a judgment for the purpose of permitting a party against whom said judgment is rendered to prosecute or defend is interlocutory and not a final order from which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Brror from District Court, Pittsburg County; ■ Preslie B. Cole} Judge. Action by W. M. Walker, a minor, by J. R. Walker, his next friend, against the Pierce Coal Company and another. Judgment for defendants, and from an order vacating the same they bring error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hayes

HAYES, J.

Defendant in error brought this action against plaintiffs in error in the court below to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received while in the employment of plaintiffs in error. Plaintiffs in error filed their answer, denying the allegations contained in defendant in error’s petition. Thereafter the cause was set down for trial, and defendant in error did not appear, and the court, without hearing any evidence on behalf of defendant, entered judgment by default against defendant in error. Thereafter defendant in error filed his motion to set aside and vacate the judgment and to reinstate the action, which motion was supported by affidavit. The court thereafter sustained the motion of defendant in error to reinstate the cause and set aside the judgment theretofore rendered. From the order of the court, reinstating the cause and setting aside and vacating the judgment theretofore entered, this appeal is attempted to be prosecuted.

*188 Defendant in error has moved to dismiss the appeal, for the reason, among others, that the order is not a final order from which an appeal lies to this court. The motion should be sustained, for it is well settled by the decisions of this court that an order made vacating a judgment for the purpose of permitting a party against whom said judgment is rendered to prosecute or defend is interlocutory, and not a final order from which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court.

Maddle v. Beavers, 24 Okla. 703 , 104 Pac. 909 ;

Aetna Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Williams et al., 26 Okla. 191 , 108 Pac. 1100 ;

W. L. Moody & Co. v. Freeman-Sipes Co. et al., 29 Okla. 390 , 118 Pac. 134 ;

Smith v. Whitlow et al., 31 Okla. 758 , 123 Pac. 1061 .

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1916: 11929: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Eufaula v. Ahrens159 P. 327 (Okla. 1916)
  2. Atwood v. State1929 OK CR 336, 280 P. 319

Most recent

  1. Atwood v. State1929 OK CR 336, 280 P. 319
  2. City of Eufaula v. Ahrens159 P. 327 (Okla. 1916)

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.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
Smith v. Whitlow, 1912 OK 413, 123 P. 1061 9
Aetna Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Williams, 1910 OK 108, 108 P. 1100 9
W. L. Moody & Co. v. Freeman-Sipes Co., 1911 OK 298, 118 P. 134 7
Maddle v. Beavers, 1909 OK 226, 104 P. 909 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list