Morgan v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1949
• Docket Number: 33272.
• Citation: 212 P.2d 663,202 Okla. 181,1949 OK 244
• Parties: MORGAN et al. v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

212 P.2d 663

202 Okla. 181, 1949 OK 244

MORGAN et al. v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. et al.

No. 33272.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

November 8, 1949

Action between Sherwood H. Morgan and another and Phillips Petroleum Company and another.

The Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County, A. L. Harbison, J vacated the judgment, and Sherwood H. Morgan and another appealed.

The Supreme Court, Davison, C.J., affirmed the judgment, and held that the trial court could exercise its discretion in vacating a judgment entered during the same term.

Syllabus by the Court.

Courts of general jurisdiction have control of all judgments decrees, or other orders, however conclusive in their character, during the term at which they are rendered, and may set aside, vacate, and modify them during said term, in the exercise of a wide and extended discretion, and in the absence of an abuse of such discretion, an order of the trial court vacating a judgment during the term will not be reversed.

Samuel A. Boorstin, Tulsa, for plaintiffs in error.

W. S Meyer, Tulsa, for defendants in error.

DAVISON Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, vacating a judgment theretofore rendered therein.

The only proposition necessary for determination by this court is as to the authority and propriety of the trial court to vacate, during the same term, the judgment theretofore rendered. In this jurisdiction that power is almost unlimited. Following an unbroken line of previous opinions this court recently held, in the case of Tulsa Exchange Co. v. Kiester et al., 199 Okl. 440, 186 P.2d 808, 809 that: 'We are committed to the rule that the district court has full control over its judgments or orders during the term at which they are rendered, and may, for sufficient cause shown, in the exercise of its sound discretion, vacate or modify the same, and that where the motion to vacate or modify is filed during the term, the movant is not required to allege or prove a valid cause of action or defense. Long v. Hill, 193 Okl. 463, 145 P.2d 434; Montague v. State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office, 184 Okl. 574, 89 P.2d 283. And in the last cited case we stated that the powers of said courts to vacate their judgments during the term in which they were rendered was not restricted by any statute. * * *' Also see Mannah v. Robinson et al., 199 Okl. 551, 188 P.2d 360; Tippins et al. v....