Court Opinion

ID: 9551060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:47:10.761507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:58.852827
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Concurrently with his petition for rehearing Porter filed an application seeking leave to withdraw the case-made for its amendment nunc pro tunc before the trial judge.
Porter concedes that the case-made now on fil* does not reflect that errors allegedly made by the trial court in its order of March 11, 1960, were included by him in a motion for new trial. According to Porter’s application, and the exhibits appended thereto, these errors were in fact assigned by him in a motion for new trial addressed solely to the order of March 11 and filed below on March IS, 1960. The claim is made that the motion of March 15 was inadvertently omitted from the case-made and the journal entry of judgment as contained in the record fails to “clearly reflect” the trial court’s adverse disposition of this motion at the same time Porter’s other motion for new trial (of July 20, 1961) was also overruled.
Upon careful re-examination of our opinion herein and a review of the record on file, we are constrained to conclude that the proposed amendment of the case-made, if effected, would not change, in any way, the basic complexion in which this case now stands for appellate review.
The order of March 11 effected no disposition of the ultimate issue in this cause which was the apportionment or distribution of the condemnation award. This was neither a suit for cancellation of a deed nor ■one to quiet title, but an ancillary proceeding, in the nature of an equitable interpleader, between adverse claimants to .a fund in custodia legis. The title to the land had already passed to the condemnor; The. question of the right to or interest in the land was but incidental. The ultimate object in this controversy was to establish a claim against the fund and procure its disbursement. Without the necessary determination of the amount, if any, each successful claimant was entitled to recover from the fund, there could be no final judgment in this proceeding. See in this connection Emerson v. Lewis, Okl., 274 P.2d 529, 531; Arthur v. Arthur, Okl., 258 P.2d 1191, 1192. There can be no final judgment until all issues raised by the pleadings, except such as are waived or abandoned, have been determined, all further inquiry thereinto concluded and nothing else left to be done except carry the judgment into execution. Wells v. Shriver, 81 Okl. 108, 197 P. 460.
Measured in the light of this rule, the order of March 11 was but interlocutory in nature. Since it did not dispose of all the issues in the proceeding, it did not rise to the dignity of a “judgment.” It amounted merely to an announcement by the trial judge “of what judgment the court would render when all of the issues raised by the pleadings had been tried out.” Foreman v. Riley, 88 Okl. 75, 211 P. 495.
A motion for new trial, addressed to an interlocutory order and prematurely filed before pronouncement of a final judgment, will not operate to preserve for review any assignments of error made therein. The statute prescribes when a motion for new trial shall be filed. Such motion, when prematurely filed, is as much out of time as when it is filed too late. Barrows v. Cassidy, 113 Okl. 114, 239 P. 581; see also Friend et al. v. Holcombe, 196 Okl. 111, 162 P.2d 1008.
Were we to allow Porter to include in the case-made the omitted premature motion, the incorporation thereof into the record would afford him no opportunity to assert in this appeal any errors made by the trial court in the order of March 11. Such errors should have been included in the mo-*816tioñi'for.iiew -trial'filed by. Porter after final-judgment heréin on. July 17, 1961. The-omission sought' to be supplied by Porter.' would hence.be of no benefit to him in procuring appellate consideration of the errors, if any, made by the trial court in its order of-March 11, 1960. • •
Under 12 O.S.Í96Í, § 959, .this court is authorized ‘to.permit amendment of case-made before final disposition of appeal,, but leave to institute correction proceedings will be denied if it appears that the omission or deficiency sought to be supplied in -the record is immaterial to the issues, presented And could not'alter appellate disposition of. the cau'se. In re Hervey, 107 Okl. 150, 231 P. 84.
.The . corrpctipns sought. to. be effected would be "vain arid useless. The application for leave to withdraw case-made for its qmend-ménf,, nuéc- pro-- tunc is accordingly denied, - - ! ' •
, BLACKBIRD., C. J., apd WELCH,-DAVISON,' JOHNSON, JACKSON, IRWIN and: BERRY, JJ., concur. - ■