Taliaferro v. Batis
| Decision Date | 28 September 1926 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 16919 |
| Citation | 1926 OK 775,252 P. 845,123 Okla. 59 |
| Parties | TALIAFERRO v. BATIS et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Judgment--"Rendition" of Judgment--Subsequent Direction to Clerk to Withhold Journal Entry--Effect.
A judgment is rendered, within the meaning of the law, at the time it is pronounced by the court, and after a judgment has been duly rendered a direction to the clerk to withhold the journal entry from the record does not have the effect of vacating, opening, or modifying said judgment.
2. Same--Vacation of Judgment at Subsequent Term--Statutory Procedure Mandatory.
The district courts of this state are without jurisdiction at a subsequent term to take any steps toward vacating, modifying, or opening a judgment of the court rendered at a previous term, unless the provisions of the statute with reference to vacation and modification of judgments and orders are substantially complied with.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4.
Error from District Court, Carter County; W. F. Freeman, Judge.
Action by Robert E. Batis against A. C. Bagby, Zue Bagby, and J. R. Taliaferro. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant J. R. Taliaferro has appealed. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Eddleman & Eddleman, for plaintiff in error.
Brett & Brett, for defendants in error.
¶1 The parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as they were designated in the court below. On June 24, 1924, Robert E. Batis commenced an action in the district court of Carter county, Okla., against A. C. Bagby, Zue Bagby, and J. R. Taliaferro upon a promissory note and real estate mortgage securing the payment thereof, executed by the defendants A. C. Bagly and Zue Bagby in favor of the plaintiff.
¶2 After the execution of the note and mortgage sued on, the Bagbys conveyed the real estate covered by the mortgage to the defendant Taliaferro. The only reference made to the defendant Taliaferro in the plaintiff's petition is the allegation "that he is now the owner of said lands as shown by the records of Carter county." The defendants A. C. Bagby and Zue Bagby, by their amended answer, admitted the execution of the note and mortgage sued on, and alleged that they conveyed the real estate covered by the mortgage to the defendant Taliaferro; and that as a part of the consideration of said conveyance the said defendant agreed to assume and pay off the indebtedness secured by said mortgage. The defendant Taliaferro by reply specifically denied that he ever agreed to pay off any of said indebtedness.
¶3 Upon the issues thus framed the case was tried on November 15, 1924, and at the conclusion of all of the evidence the court took the case under advisement, and on March 23, 1925, and during the January term of said court, rendered a personal judgment against the defendants A. C. Bagby and Zue Bagby for the amount due upon said promissory note and costs, and a decree of foreclosure of said mortgage and directed that in the event the mortgaged premises did not sell for an amount sufficient to satisfy said judgment and costs, execution issue against said defendants A. C. Bagby and Zue Bagby. It was further adjudged that neither the defendants A. C. Bagby, nor Zue Bagby, nor the plaintiff recover anything from the defendant Taliaferro. No motion for a new trial was filed, and on the 30th day of April, 1925, the January term of said court expired. On May 13, 1925, and during the May term of said court, the plaintiff filed the following motion:
"Comes now the plaintiff and moves the court to open the case, which has been pending for sometime, in order that the witness, Gus Gaines, may be asked some questions which bear directly upon the issues involved as to whether or not J. R. Taliaferro assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage which R. E. Batis had against A. C. Bagby, and which direct questions were not asked the witness Gaines in the former hearing, by reason of the fact that counsel did not know of the conversation which took place, Gaines answering in the former examination only such questions as were asked, and further asked that this testimony be put on in order that the court may be fully advised as to all of the facts in the matter."
¶4 The defendant Taliaferro appeared specially and objected to said motion, upon the grounds that final judgment was rendered in said cause on March 23, 1925, and during the January term; that said term had expired and the May term begun; and that the court was without jurisdiction to reopen the case.
¶5 While this motion and objection were under consideration the court made the following statement:
¶6 The defendant's objection was overruled, and an exception...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Werfelman v. Miller
...176, 217 P. 404. A judgment is rendered when pronounced by the court, and the journal entry is only a record thereof. Taliaferro v. Batis, 123 Okla. 59, 252 P. 845. This court will permit a record to be withdrawn for the very purpose of inserting the evidence of the entry of the court. Cour......
-
Hines v. Armstrong
...the date of the pronouncement of judgment on said motion. The written judgment or journal entry is only the record thereof. See Taliaferro v. Batis, 123 Okla. 59. 252 P. 845. The minutes are no part of the record, and in the absence of an order overruling motion for new trial, where motion ......
-
Adamson v. Brady
...17, 1941, and that by virtue of a nunc pro tunc order, the clerk entered the judgment as of February 17, 1941. ¶12 Taliaferro v. Batis, 123 Okla. 59, 252 P. 845, holds that a judgment is rendered, within the meaning of the law, at the time it is pronounced by the court. The rendition of a j......
-
Savery v. Mosely
...upon grounds duly assigned, presented and established as authorized by statute. In this the defendant has failed. In Taliaferro v. Batis, 123 Okla. 59, 252 P. 845, we held:"The district courts of this state, are without jurisdiction at a subsequent term to take any steps toward vacating, mo......