REEDER v. MITCHELL

REEDER v. MITCHELL
1934 OK 181
32 P.2d 26
167 Okla. 621
Case Number: 21930
Decided: 03/20/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

REEDER, Adm'x, et al.
v.
MITCHELL, Adm'r, et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Judgment--Right to Vacate Judgment for Fraud--Perjured Testimony.
False evidence or perjury alone, relative to an issue tried, is not a sufficient ground for vacating or setting aside a judgment; the fraud which will authorize the court to vacate a judgment must be extrinsic or collateral to the issues tried in the cause wherein the attacked judgment was rendered; it must be such fraud of the prevailing party as to prevent the other from having a trial of the issues.
2. Same--Suit in Equity to Vacate Judgment--Insufficiency of Petition.
Where the plaintiff brings an independent suit in equity seeking to vacate a judgment, as a part of his necessary relief, on the ground that such judgment was obtained by fraud and by duress, which is held to be a species of fraud, practiced by the successful party, and wherein it appears from plaintiff's petition that section 809, C. O. S. 1921 [O. S. 1931, sec. 555], and the statutes in support thereof would have afforded plaintiff full and adequate relief, and there is no sufficient allegation in the petition showing why he did not apply to the court rendering such judgment within the time fixed by section 817, C. O. S. 1921 [O. S. 1931, sec. 563], it is held that the trial court did not err in sustaining an objection made by the defendant to the introduction of any testimony by the plaintiff.

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Saul A. Yager, Judge.

Action by Jessica V. Reeder, administratrix of the estate of C. L. Reeder, et al. against Young O. Mitchell, administrator of estate of John O. Mitchell, et al. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Woodson E. Norvell, for plaintiffs in error.
Davidson & Williams, for defendants in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 The parties to this action appear here as they appeared in the trial court, and will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

¶2 This cause is before this court on a transcript of the record of the district court of Tulsa county. The trial court sustained a general demurrer to the petition and dismissed the action. From that order of the court an appeal was taken to this court.

¶3 There was no complaint of extraneous fraud. The alleged perjured testimony did not relate to extraneous facts. The same is true as to the alleged suppression of testimony.

¶4 Under the rule stated in Thigpen v. Deutsch et al., 66 Okla. 19, 166 P. 901; Douglas, Adm'r, v. Hoyle, 115 Okla. 7, 240 P. 1072; Tiger v. Drumright, 95 Okla. 174, 217 P. 453; Burton et al. v. Swanson et al., 142 Okla. 134, 285 P. 839; Kendall v. Watts et al., 135 Okla. 66, 273 P. 991; Miller v. White, 129 Okla. 184, 265 P. 646, and Dooley v. Foreman, 94 Okla. 163, 221 P. 47, the trial court committed no error in sustaining the demurrer, and the judgment is affirmed.