Case Name: WHITAKER v. CHESTNUT
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1917-05-08
Citations: 65 Okla. 122
Docket Number: No. 7640
Parties: WHITAKER v. CHESTNUT.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
WHITAKER v. CHESTNUT.
No. 7640
Opinion Filed May 8, 1917.
(165 Pac. 160.)
Appeal and Error — Petition in Error; — Order of Court Review.
“Order of the court on a’motion to vacate a judgment is not a part of the record proper and cannot be reviewed by this court on petition in error and transcript.”
‘(Syllabus by Stewart, CO
Error from District Court, Mayes County; Preston S. Davis, Judge.
Action by W. J. Whitaker against H. M. Chestnut. Judgment by default, defendant’s motion on his special appearance to vacate and set aside the judgment sustained, and plaintiff files petition in error and transcript.
Appeal dismissed1.
J. Howard Langley, for plaintiff in error.
T. C. Wilson and Irwin Donovan, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
STEWART, C.
The plaintiff, W. J. Whitaker, obtained a judgment against the defendant, H. M. Chestnut, in the district court of Mayes county by default. Afterwards, by special appearance, the defendant moved the court to vacate and set aside the judgment, which motion was by the court sustained. The- plaintiff attempts to appeal to this court by petition in error and transcript.
In Orr v. Fulton, 52 Okla. 621, 153 Pac. 149, it is said:
"Á motion to vacate a judgment copied into a transcript constitutes no part of the record, and presents no question for review by the Supreme Court on appeal."
In Menten v. Shuttee, 11 Okla. 381, 67 Pac. 478, the Supreme Court of the territory of Oklahoma says:
"Motions presented to the trial court, the rulings thereon, and exceptions, are not properly part of the record, and can only be preserved and presented for review on appeal by incorporating the same into a bill of exceptions or case-made."
Such is the uniform holding of this court, as shown by the following authorities: Tribal Developing Company v. White Bros., 28 Okla. 525, 114 Pac. 736; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 372, 112 Pac. 1040; Veverka v. Frank et al., 41 Okla. 142, 137 Pac. 682; Grady County v. Schrock et al., 53 Okla. 144, 155 Pac. 882.
We have no discretion.
Following the authorities cited, the appeal is dismissed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.