Court Opinion

ID: 9830903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:36:46.522231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.225555
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In order that our decision may not be misunderstood, we think it proper to say we did not mean to hold that, when the court set aside the judgment rendered in cause No. 1,514, without rendering judgment in the last proceeding, the original cause No. 1,514 was left open for further adjudication on the merits.
[2] It is the proper procedure in an action brought to set aside a judgment, when the new trial is granted, not to try the old case as it stood on the docket, but to try upon the allegations of the new petition and the answer of the other party, and final Judgment should be rendered in the new proceeding and at the time the former judgment is set aside. The court in the instant case, however, after the judgment in cause No. 1,514 was set aside and vacated, did not proceed, so far as the record shows, to render judgment on the merits; hence the judgment or order merely vacating the judgment rendered in No. 1,514 was not a final judgment from which an appeal will lie.
[3] If, as a matter of fact, the court did render a judgment upon the merits, but such judgment was not entered on the minutes, it may be, on proper motion, entered nunc pro tunc, and an appeal could then be prosecuted from such judgment. If, however, no such judgment was rendered, then the order setting aside and vacating the judgment was of no force and effect; and the court should now proceed to hear and determine the case upon the pleadings of the parties and the evidence to be introduced in the new proceeding, and enter final judgment therein.
The motion for a rehearing is refused.