Case ID: okla_133/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HENSON v. HAYS.
    No. 19641.
    Opinion Filed Oct. 9, 1928.
    Simpson & Dickerson, for plaintiff in error.
    Hays, Biddison & Hays, for defendant in error.
   PER CURIAM.

Tfi’e defendant in error, as plaintiff, began this action in tfie. common pleas court of Tulsa county, for tfie recovery of money and instituted garnishment proceedings in said action. Tfie plaintiff in error, defendant below, moved to dissolve tfie garnishment proceedings, and on July 7, 1928, tfie trial court made an order dissolving tfie same, but on tfie same day set aside said order. Thereafter a hearing was had on tfie motion to dissolve, and at tfie conclusion tfier’eof the motion was overruled and the dissolution of tfie garnishment proceedings denied. Plaintiff in error has appealed, and complains of tfie action of the court in setting aside tfie order of dissolution and in not rendering judgment in his favor after having heard all tfie facts. Tfie defendant in error has filed a motion to dismiss tfie appeal, and assigns as grounds therefor tfiat tfie orders appealed from are not appealable orders.

Tfie order of tfie trial court vacating and setting aside the order of dissolution was an interlocutory order and not a final order, for tfie reason tfiat a hearing was thereafter had on the motion to dissolve, and tfie order made thereon did not prevent a judgment in favor of tfie movant. It was an interlocutory order made during the pen-dency of tfie action, and left the parties in tfie court to have the issues tried on tfie merits and therefore not an appealable order. No special provision is made in the law of, this jurisdiction for an appeal therefrom. Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Patterson, 73 Okla. 243, 175 Pac. 934.

A .garnishment proceeding under the statute of Oklahoma is so effectively an attachment that it is included within the term attachment. Berry-Beall Dry Goods Co. v. Adams, 87 Okla. 291, 211 Pac. 79. An order of the court overruling a motion to discharge an attachment is not reviewable in the Supreme Court until final judgment is rendered in the case. Hodges v. Haller Proprietary Co., 96 Okla. 169, 220 Pac. 469; Snyder v. Elliot, 26 Okla. 256, 110 Pac. 784; Garretson v. Meeker, 76 Okla. 316, 185 Pac. 446.

The record filed in this court does not disclose any final judgment has been rendered in the cause, and, under the authorities cited herein, the orders from which the appeal is attempted are not reviewable in this court until final judgment has been rendered in the case. The motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.