Court Opinion

ID: 9832496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:57:31.915192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:47.412343
License: Public Domain

On Appellees’ Motion for Rehearing.
In their motion for rehearing, appellees complain that we failed to act upon the motion filed by them to dismiss the appeal. While we did not, in express terms, overrule the motion to dismiss, but in treating the judgment peipetuating the injunction as final, and basing our entire adjudication on that idea, the motion, to all intents and purposes, was denied, and we so intended.
The ground alleged by appellees for in-junctive relief is, “That the judgment above set out (the judgment sought to be enjoined), is the only judgment ever entered in this cause, is not a final judgment, and will not support an execution, and any execution issued on said judgment is void, etc.” Upon these, and other allegations to the same effect, appellees sought and obtained, first, a temporary writ, and on final hearing, permanent relief, enjoining enforcement of the judgment, of date January 17, 1930; from this judgment, the appeal is prosecuted. The contention of appellees that the judgment is interlocutory, hence not appealable, is based upon the fact that, in the order perpetuating the injunction, the court attempted to vacate and set aside the judgment enjoined. It is sufficient to say that the attempt of the trial court to vacate and set aside the judgment must be ignored, because not authorized by any pleading; the only purpose of ap-pellees’ suit being to obtain relief by injunc- • tion from the judgment, and not to review vacate, or set same aside.
We have duly considered all grounds urged for rehearing, and the same are overruled.