Foreman v. Riley
| Decision Date | 02 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 12752. |
| Citation | 211 P. 495,88 Okla. 75,1923 OK 2 |
| Parties | FOREMAN v. RILEY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
An appeal does not lie from a district court to the Supreme Court to review an interlocutory order which orders the appointment of a referee for the purpose of taking an accounting, and which states that when such referee's report is filed judgment will be rendered canceling certain deeds and adjudicating the rights of the parties under the accounting.
Where the party, feeling himself aggrieved by such interlocutory order, attempts to appeal from the district court to this court for the purpose of having such interlocutory order reviewed, and the defendant in error files a motion to dismiss said appeal for the reason that it is not a final judgment, such motion should be sustained.
Wells v. Shriver, 81 Okl. 108, 197 P. 460.
A judgment must not only determine the rights of the parties in an action, but must conclude all further inquiry into the issues joined by the pleadings, and leave nothing further to be done except carry it into execution. Wells v Shriver, 81 Okl. 108, 197 P. 460.
Every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing and not included in a judgment, is an order. Section 5316, Rev. Laws 1910.
Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Owen Owen, Judge.
Action by Lennie Riley against Robert Foreman, to cancel deeds and recover lands and for an accounting. From an order appointing a referee defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Robinson & Mieher, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Lashley & Rambo and Rollin E. Gish, all of Tulsa, for defendant in error.
This action was commenced in the district court of Tulsa county by Lennie Riley, née Foreman, as plaintiff, against Robert Foreman, as defendant, to cancel and set aside a certain deed bearing date of January 11, 1915, by which deed the said Lennie Riley had conveyed certain lands in Tulsa county to the defendant, Robert Foreman, who was her father. She alleged that she was without business experience, and immediately prior to the execution of said deed was a minor under the age of 18 years, and that her father represented to her that, on account of her lack of business experience, she would be in great danger of being defrauded out of her land and that for her own protection she should execute the deed conveying said land to him; that the deed was executed for said purpose and for no other purpose, and that no consideration passed therefor; that in fact her father held the title in trust for her, but thereafter asserted absolute ownership to said property, and this suit was brought to cancel the deed and for an accounting for the rents, profits oil royalties and bonuses derived from leases made by her father on said land.
The case was tried to the court, and at the conclusion of the trial the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law, which, in substance, were, that the deed should be canceled as prayed for by the plaintiff, and that a referee should be appointed to take an accounting of the rents and profits, and that when the referee made his report, judgment should be rendered, canceling the deed in question and decreeing the title to the property in the plaintiff, and such further judgment as would be warranted under the report of the referee.
The defendant in the court below saved his exceptions, filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, obtained time in which to make and serve a case-made, and appealed to this court, appearing here as plaintiff in error. The appeal was duly...
To continue reading
Request your trial