Pratt v. Pratt
| Decision Date | 28 February 1914 |
| Parties | PRATT v. PRATT. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a party against whom a judgment is rendered files a motion to vacate the judgment upon the ground that the court has no jurisdiction of the defendant, and said motion is based upon nonjurisdictional as well as jurisdictional grounds held, that thereby said party enters a general appearance as though said appearance had been made at the trial. Ziska v. Avey, 36 Okl. 405, 122 P. 722.
In an action brought for a divorce, a petition which embodies the essential averments for a divorce on the grounds of abandonment is sufficient. A petition which alleges the marriage contract, that the plaintiff had been a resident of Oklahoma for one year prior to the date of filing plaintiff's petition, an actual resident in good faith in the county in which the action was brought, and said petition shows that defendant abandoned plaintiff for more than a year prior to the filing of said petition, without cause or provocation, sufficiently states a cause of action.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Canadian County; Geo. W. Clark, Judge.
Action by Nellie H. Pratt against Charles H. Pratt. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
On the 18th day of April, 1906, the defendant in error Charles H Pratt, brought an action for divorce on the grounds of abandonment, against the plaintiff in error, Nellie H. Pratt in the district court of Canadian county, Okl., and procured service by filing an affidavit for service by publication. The notice was published in the El Reno Democrat on June 4 1906. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant in error on the 19th day of November, 1906. No motion for new trial was filed. Afterwards, on the 20th day of March 1911, the plaintiff in error, filed a motion to vacate the judgment on the following grounds: First, because the affidavit for publication is insufficient to authorize any judgment rendered herein; second, because the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; third because no service of publication, or any service, was had on the defendant; fourth, because of errors patent of record in this action; fifth, because the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant, and said decree of divorce was rendered by the court when same was without authority of law to try said cause. This motion was by the court overruled and exceptions allowed, and the plaintiff in error brings the case here for review, assigning as error the action of the court in overruling said motion.
W. M. Wallace, of El Reno, for plaintiff in error.
Phelps & Cope, of El Reno, for defendant in error.
RITTENHOUSE, C. (after stating the facts as above).
This case is similar in many respects to the case of Ziska v Avey et al., 36 Okl. 405, 122 P. 722, the assignments of error presenting only two questions: First, that the court did not have...
To continue reading
Request your trial