STANLEY v. SCHOOL DIST.

STANLEY v. SCHOOL DIST.
1930 OK 151
286 P. 340
142 Okla. 240
Case Number: 20869
Decided: 04/01/1930
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

STANLEY, County Treasurer of Marshall County, et al.
v.
SCHOOL DIST. No. 4.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Determination of Whether Appellate Jurisdiction Invoked.
This court will determine for itself whether its jurisdiction to review the cause appealed has been invoked.
2. Same--Conclusiveness of Judgment of Lower Court in Accordance with Mandate of Supreme Court.
A final judgment of the district court entered in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court is not open to attack upon the ground that the Supreme Court acquired no jurisdiction of the case.
3. Same--Dismissal of Frivolous Appeal.
Where, upon examination of the record, petition in error, and motion to dismiss, it appears that the appeal is manifestly frivolous and without merit, the appeal will be dismissed.

Error from District Court, Marshall County; Porter Newman, Judge.

Action by School District No. 4, Marshall County, against A. F. Stanley, County Treasurer, et al. From an order of the trial court denying defendants' motion to vacate judgment entered in accordance with the mandate of Supreme Court on former appeal, the defendants bring error. Dismissed.

E. S. Hurt, Norman Horton, and George E. Rider, for plaintiffs in error.
C. C. Hatchett, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 From a judgment of the district court of Marshall county the defendant in error herein took appeal to this court. In an opinion filed in this court March 19, 1929, the judgment appealed from was reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff in error in the manner and form therein indicated. School District No. 4, Marshall County, v. Stanley, Co. Treasurer, et al., 136 Okla. 14, 275 P. 1042, where a full statement of the case may be found. The mandate of this court was issued and spread of record in the trial court on April 22, 1929. On May 14, 1929, the defendant in errors therein, plaintiffs in error in this appeal, made application to this court to file a motion to recall the mandate and dismiss the appeal, which application was denied, and on May 18, 1929, judgment was entered by the trial court in accordance with the mandate of this court. On the same day the plaintiffs in error herein filed their motion to vacate the judgment rendered on said day, which motion in effect is based upon the same grounds as the motion presented to this court where leave to file the same was denied, and in this motion the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review the case on former appeal was challenged on the grounds the case-made presented to this court for review was a nullity by reason of defect in the authentication of the same. The trial court denied this motion, and from its order the plaintiffs in error appeal. The record in this cause presents but one question necessary to consider in order to properly dispose of this appeal.

¶2 Where, upon remand to it by mandate reversing its former judgment with directions that the trial court render judgment in conformity with the judgment of this court, may the trial court, on motion to vacate final judgment, determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review its former judgment in the cause?

¶3 In Re Magnolia Petroleum Co., 138 Okla. 205, 280 P. 574, the rule is announced:

"This court will determine for itself whether its jurisdiction to review the cause appealed to this court has been revoked."