Stumpff v. Harper
Decision Date | 11 January 1923 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 13487 |
Citation | 90 Okla. 195,1923 OK 24,214 P. 709 |
Parties | STUMPFF v. HARPER et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Dismissal--Effect as Affirmance.
When an appeal is dismissed by this court, the effect is to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
2. Same--Affirmance as Res Judicata.
When this court, on appeal, affirms the judgment of the trial court, such judgment is res judicata as to the issues tried in said action by the court below.
3. Same--Jurisdiction of Trial Court After Affirmance--Vacation of Judgment.
When the party aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court appeals to this court and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and such judgment has become res judicata, the trial court is without jurisdiction to entertain a motion, application, or petition to vacate and set aside such judgment, or retry the issues that had theretofore been tried and adjudicated.
Error from District Court, Osage County; Charles B. Wilson, Jr., Judge.
Action by Florence H. Stumpff against W. J. E. Harper et al., in ejectment. On issues raised by Harper to recover under the Occupying Claimant's Act, judgment was rendered for defendant Harper. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.
Elmer L. Fulton, for plaintiff in error.
Leahy, McDonald, Burnett & Files and Gray & Miller, for defendants in error.
¶1 This is the third time this case has been appealed to this court. The first appeal was entitled Stumpff v. Price, reported in 74 Okla. 117, 177 P. 109. The next appeal was entitled Harper v. Stumpff, reported in 84 Okla. 187, 203 P. 194. The facts and issues have been sufficiently set forth in the preceding appeals, therefore we deem it unnecessary to reiterate them here.
¶2 Prior to the appeal in Harper v. Stumpff, supra, two jury trials were had and two judgments rendered. On March 17, 1920, a jury was impaneled and sworn to try the cause, and it was there agreed that only the ejectment action should be tried. The jury, upon the same day, returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the possession of the premises and certain damages. On March 18, 1920, another jury was impaneled and the issue regarding the right of Harper to recover under the Occupying Claimants Act was submitted to this jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Harper for certain taxes paid by him, but did not allow anything for improvements. The court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury. Harper filed motions for a new trial and asked to vacate each of these judgments so rendered by the trial court. The motions for new trial were overruled, and Harper attempted to appeal from each judgment, bringing them up to this court in one appeal. This appeal was dismissed for duplicity. The case should have ended here, but defendants Harper and the Aetna Building & Loan Association filed a request that they be given the benefit of the Occupying Claimants Act, and that the court set a day for trial of their rights as such occupying claimants, and that they recover compensation for lasting, valuable and permanent improvements made by them. Stumpff filed a motion to strike this request from the files. On March 29, 1922, the court overruled the motion to strike, and the court made an order vacating and setting aside the judgment rendered on March 18, 1920, and thereafter on an agreed statement of facts rendered judgment in favor of Harper and against Stumpff. Florence H. Stumpff perfected this appeal and appears here as plaintiff in error. Five specific assignments of error have been set out upon which the plaintiff in error relies for reversal of the judgment of the trial court. It will only be necessary to consider the first and third assignments of error, which read as follows:
¶3 These two assignments of error raise the same question, and will be considered together. The judgment of the trial court rendered on March 17, 1920, adjudging that Florence H. Stumpff was the owner of the land in controversy and entitled to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harness v. Myers, Case Number: 18318
...62 Okla. 263; 73 Okla. 40; 62 Okla. 112; 68 Okla. 240; 62 Okla. 109; 21 Okla. 503; 39 Okla. 565; 36 Okla. 76; 37 Okla. 48; 25 Okla. 199; 90 Okla. 195; 98 Okla. 47; 4 C. J. 1093-1099-1213-1321; 5 Cyc. 49, 492. ¶7 This court justifies itself by stating that the law as determined at the time o......
-
Harris v. Chambers. Dist. Judge
...grant the relief prayed for. The judgment of the lower court, by our approval, became as well the judgment of this court. Stumpff v. Harper, 90 Okla. 195, 214 P. 709; Bertin & Lepori v. Mattison et al. (Ore.) 81 Ore. 482, 159 P. 1167; Gamniel Statement Publishing Co. v. Jones & Co. (Tex. Co......
-
Brady v. Mccrory
...Defendant in Error, it operated as an affirmance of the judgment of the lower court, and with this contention we agree. Stumpff v. Harper, 90 Okla. 195, 214 P. 709. Plaintiff in error further contends that this judgment inured to his benefit, he claiming under a deed from Melvina Worley, da......
-
State ex rel. Mothersead v. Hardister
...the purported appeal of the Bank Commissioner from said judgment, in effect, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Stumpff v. Harper, 90 Okla. 195, 214 P. 709. ¶10 The five questions raised by the Bank Commissioner on this appeal having been finally disposed of and adjudicated by the di......