Martin v. Farmer

• Decision Date: 11 October 1932
• Docket Number: 20370.
• Parties: MARTIN et al. v. FARMER.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

15 P.2d 11

159 Okla. 210, 1932 OK 670

MARTIN et al. v. FARMER.

No. 20370.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

October 11, 1932

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a motion is filed in a case, considered by the court and a ruling made thereon, the effect of said motion is exhausted, and where the same identical motion is presented to the court later in the same proceedings, it raises no legal question because said motion has been adjudicated.

2. "An appeal does not lie to this Court from an intermediate or interlocutory order made during the pendency of an action, which intermediate or interlocutory order leaves the parties in Court to have the issues tried on the merits, unless the appeal sought to be taken comes within some one of the special orders from which an appeal is authorized by statute prior to final judgment in the main action." Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. et al v. Patterson et al., 73 Okl. 234, 175 P. 934.

3. Record examined, and held, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Appeal from District Court, Pittsburg County; Harve L. Melton Judge.

Action by J. L. Farmer against R. E. Martin and another, wherein after a judgment was obtained against the defendants, a garnishment summons was issued against the Marshall Supply Company. From an order overruling the motion of the defendant R. E. Martin to dissolve the garnishment and to cancel and forfeit the judgment, such defendant and the garnishee appeal.

Affirmed.

S. S. Lawrence, of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error Martin.

Q. Louis Dickerson and Hughey Baker, both of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error Marshall Supply Co.

Wilkinson & Hudson, of McAlester, for defendant in error.

CULLISON J.

J. L. Farmer, as plaintiff, procured a judgment against C. C. Jones and R. E. Martin in the district court of Pittsburg county, November 16, 1926. Later, execution was issued on the judgment and garnishment issued in aid of execution against the defendant Martin. Defendant Martin filed a motion to dissolve the garnishment and to cancel and forfeit said judgment because the garnishment summons did not comply with the 25 per cent. exemption law. Said motion was heard by the court and overruled. Martin gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court, but did not perfect said appeal and permitted the judgment to become final. Further garnishment summons was issued in said cause against Martin and the Marshall Supply Company as garnishee on February 2, 1929, and served on the garnishee. The garnishee, Marshall Supply Company, filed a special appearance and motion to quash the garnishment summons issued on February 2, 1929. The special appearance and the motion to quash of the garnishee was considered by the court and overruled on April 20, 1929. Thereupon, the defendant Martin asked leave to refile his motion for a forfeiture of the judgment which was the same motion that had been passed upon previously by the court and denied. And from which decision no appeal had been taken. The court thereupon overruled said motion to forfeit. Thereupon the garnishee, Martin Supply Company, elected to stand upon its motion to quash service of garnishment summons and Martin gave notice of his intention to appeal from the order of the court refusing to forfeit the judgment and brought said matter to this court upon appeal.

Two questions are presented in said appeal: First, that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to forfeit the judgment; and, second, that the court erred in overruling the motion to quash garnishment summons.

In consideration of the first ground presented by defendant, we find that the motion to forfeit said judgment went to the matter of the garnishment summons...