Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co. v. Gulf Pipe Line Co.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 23631 |
| Citation | 168 Okla. 136,32 P.2d 42,1934 OK 248 |
| Parties | PROTEST OF GULF PIPE LINE CO. SEMINOLE COUNTY et al. v. GULF PIPE LINE CO. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Judgment--Presumptions in Favor of Validity of Judgments of Courts of Compitent Jurisdiction.
When a Court of competent jurisdiction has rendered a judgment in relation to any subject within its jurisdiction, the presumption arises that it had before it sufficient evidence to authorize it to award such judgment; and where facts are required to be proved to confer jurisdiction, the presumption is that such facts were duly proved although the record was silent upon the matter.
2. Same--Collateral Attack on Judgment of District Court--Judgment not Rendered Void by Defective Pleading.
The district courts of this state are courts of general jurisdiction, and their judgments cannot be collaterally attacked unless the record affirmatively shows want of jurisdiction, and every fact not negatived by the record is presumed in support of the judgment, and where the court is one having power to grant the relief sought, and having the parties before it, the fact that the petition defectively states a cause of action or fails to state it, does not make the judgment void on collateral attack: there being no connection between jurisdiction and sufficient allegations.
3. Same--Finding of Jurisdictional Facts Conclusive in Collateral Attack.
A finding of the jurisdictional facts in a domestic judgment is conclusive in a collateral attack upon such judgment where an attempt was made to again put such facts in issue.
4. Same--Party Making Collateral Attack Required to Allege and Prove Invalidity of Judgment Appears on Face of Judgment Roll.
Where the judgment of a court of general jurisdiction is attacked in a collateral proceeding, the party attacking must allege and prove that the judgment roll shows upon the face thereof that the judgment is void.
Appeal from Court of Tax Review.
Judgment reversed, with directions.
Orr & Woodford and Otis H. Presson, for plaintiffs in error.
James B. Diggs, William C. Liedtke, Russell G. Lowe, Redmond S. Cole, and C. L. Billings, for defendant in error Gulf Pipe Line Co.
¶1 This case involves the validity of a judgment of the district court of Seminole county. It comes to this court on appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Review declaring certain tax levies made for the payment of a judgment illegal.
¶2 Portions of the judgment roll in connection with the questioned judgment were introduced in evidence in the Court of Tax Review. An examination thereof discloses that on July 2, 1930, one S. D. Patterson, as plaintiff, commenced an action in the district court of Seminole county to recover a money judgment from the defendant Carr school district No. 25, of Seminole county, for the unpaid balance on a contract for the construction of a school building. The cause was docketed in the district court and numbered 16145, civil. Summons was issued and served. On August 2, 1990, the defendant school district filed its answer. The cause was thereafter tried to the court without a jury on the 13th day of June, 1931, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $ 4,858.11. No appeal was taken from this judgment, and the same became final. S. D. Patterson thereafter assigned the judgment to one Hugh Green. In approving the estimates of the various municipal subdivisions of Seminole county for the fiscal year of 1931-32, the excise board of that county approved an item in the estimate for sinking fund purposes to pay the interest and one-third of the principal of the judgment above mentioned. This levy was attacked in the Court of Tax Review by the protestant, Gulf Pipe Line Company defendant in error herein. The protest was contested before the Court of Tax Review by Seminole county and Hugh Green. The Court of Tax Review sustained the protest: In this appeal we are asked to reverse the decision of that court.
¶3 Protestant's objection to the levy and their argument in support of the decision of the Court of Tax Review is presented under two propositions which are:
¶4 (1) "The judgment roll in the original case shows on its face it is void on account of absence of essential allegations."
¶5 (2) "That the judgment roll in the original case shows on its face it is void on account of failure of the trial court to require compliance with chapter 106, Session Laws 1925 (sections 5976-5979, O. S. 1931), of these in their order."
¶6 The protestees, on the other hand, assert that the questioned judgment is in all respects regular and legal, and is not subject to a successful collateral attack.
¶7 There are fundamental and well-settled principles of law relative to collateral attack on judgments by which we are guided in arriving at a conclusion in a case of this character. A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action. Fooshee & Brunson v. Smith, 34 Okla. 247, 124 P. 1070; Davis v. Norton, 36 Okla. 505, 129 P. 750. Courts are created for the purpose of settling disputes involving personal and property rights. Judgments are the means by which courts accomplish the purpose of their creation. The law looks with favor upon settlement of controversies and the termination of litigation. It views with disfavor the reopening of old disputes which have been previously submitted to and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. Methods are usually provided for correcting erroneous decisions of courts of original jurisdiction. In this state appellate courts are created by the Constitution, and a comprehensive system for obtaining an appellate review of an erroneous decision is available to a dissatisfied litigant. Liberal rules of intervention prevail, and parties whose rights may be adversely affected by the outcome of pending litigation may intervene in order to safeguard their interests. Having intervened, they become parties to the litigation and may invoke the reviewing power of an appellate court.
¶8 When the judgment of a court is questioned on appeal, or in some other manner authorized by law, the attack is said to be direct. (Cochran v. Barkus, 112 Okla. 180, 240 P. 321; Watkins v. Jester, 103 Okla. 201, 229 P. 1085. When, however, an attempt is made to avoid, defeat, evade, or deny the force and effect of a judgment in a manner not authorized by law, and by a procedure not designed for that purpose, the attack is classified as collateral. Powers v. Brown, 122 Okla. 40, 252 P. 27; Richardson v. Carr, 68 Okla. 46, 171 P. 476; Griffin v. Culp, 68 Okla. 310, 174 P. 495. A proceeding before the Court of Tax Review, wherein the validity or a judgment of one of the district courts of the state is questioned, is a collateral attack upon such judgment. Protest of St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. 162 Okla. 62, 19 P.2d 162; In re Protest St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 157 Okla. 131, 11 P.2d 189.
¶9 The classification of the attack upon this judgment is of fundamental and primary importance. It establishes the scope of our inquiry and determines the tests by which we shall determine the validity of the judgment.
¶10 In order to render a valid judgment a court must have: (1) Jurisdiction of the parties. (2) Jurisdiction of the subjectmatter. (3) Judicial power to render the particular judgment rendered, which means Jurisdiction of the particular matter which the judgment professes to decide. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster, 84 Okla. 291, 203 P. 231. When a judgment is attacked collaterally, the court in which the attack is made may inspect the judgment roll for the purpose of determining the validity of the judgment, but it cannot properly declare the questioned judgment void unless it affirmatively appears from an examination of the judgment roll that some one or more of these essentials of jurisdiction was absent.
¶11 In discussing this subject this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Swindall, said in Re Protest of St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., 157 Okla. 131, 11 P.2d 189, supra:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. Travelers Ins. Co., Case Number: 27264
...does not depend upon the correctness of the decision. See discussion and authorities in Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Company, Seminole County et al. v. Gulf Pipe Line Co., 168 Okla. 136, 32 P.2d 42. ¶10 This criticism of the rule applied to judgments on this question may seem belated in view o......
-
Excise Bd. of Le Flore Cnty. v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., Case Number: 24698
...a favorable decision in the lower court. ¶22 In the case of Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co. and also styled Seminole County et al. v. Gulf Pipe Line Co., 168 Okla. 136, 32 P.2d 42, the writer of this opinion, speaking for the court, endeavored to recognize and apply to tax protest cases the e......
-
Neal v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...decision. See discussion and authorities in Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Company (Seminole County et al. v. Gulf Pipe Line Company), 168 Okl. 136, 32 P.2d 42. criticism of the rule applied to judgments on this question may seem belated in view of the lapse of time since this court first announ......
-
Potash Co. of America v. New Mexico Public Service Commission
...of parties, jurisdiction of the subject matter, and power or authority to decide the particular matters presented, Protest of Gulf Pipe Line Co., 168 Okl. 136, 32 P.2d 42; Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U.S. 274, 23 L.Ed. 914, and the lack of either is fatal to the judgment, Reynolds v. Stockton, 1......