From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rahl v. Marlow State Bank

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 4, 1913
37 Okla. 170 (Okla. 1913)

Opinion

No. 2798

Opinion Filed April 4, 1913.

APPEAL AND ERROR — Appealable Order — Setting Aside Default. An order setting aside a judgment by default, and permitting the defendant to answer and make defense, is not appealable.

(Syllabus by Rosser, C.)

Error from Stephens County Court; W. H. Admire, Judge.

Action by John Rahl against the Marlow State Bank and O. R. McKinney, cashier. From an order vacating a default judgment against the defendants, plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.

E. E. Morris and Wilkinson Morris, for plaintiff in error.

Burns Setton, for defendants in error.


John Rahl brought an action against the Marlow State Bank and others, and obtained judgment by default against the Marlow State Bank on the 4th of April, 1910. On the 13th of May, 1910, this proceeding was begun for the purpose of having the judgment set aside. On the 12th of July the judgment was set aside, and this appeal is from the judgment or order setting aside the former judgment in the case of Rahl against the Marlow State Bank.

This is not an appealable order. The question has been before this court a number of times, and the question is well settled. Low Byars v. Sprouls, 24 Okla. 299, 103 P. 1038; Moody v. Freeman Williams, 24 Okla. 701, 104 P. 30; Maddle v. Beavers, 24 Okla. 703, 104 P. 909; Aetna Building Loan Ass'n v. Williams, 26 Okla. 191, 108 P. 1100; Moody v. Freeman-Sipes Co., 29 Okla. 690, 118 P. 134. The order setting aside the former judgment merely reopened the case for the purpose of permitting the defendant to make its defense.

The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Rahl v. Marlow State Bank

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Apr 4, 1913
37 Okla. 170 (Okla. 1913)
Case details for

Rahl v. Marlow State Bank

Case Details

Full title:RAHL v. MARLOW STATE BANK et al

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Apr 4, 1913

Citations

37 Okla. 170 (Okla. 1913)
131 P. 525

Citing Cases

Richardson et al. v. Howard

And the foregoing authorities also seem to make it clear that such statutes do not impair the common-law…

Pennsylvania Co. v. Potter

But the court is not clothed with any such discretion in granting a new trial under section 5267, Rev. Laws…