56 P.2d 829 | Okla. | 1936
In the case of Capitol Hill Undertaking Co. v. Render,
J.T. Render, plaintiff in that case, then filed a petition in the district court seeking to vacate the judgment under the provisions of the fourth subdivision of section 810, C. O. S. 1921 (sec. 556, subd. 4. O. S. 1931). It was asserted, in substance, that fraud in procuring the judgment was practiced by the successful party in that some of the records introduced in evidence were forged and some of the evidence was false.
In Vacuum Oil Co. v. Brett,
"False evidence or perjury alone, relative to an issue tried, is not sufficient ground for vacating or setting aside a judgment; the fraud which will authorize the court to vacate a judgment must be extrinsic or collateral to the issues tried in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered: it must be such fraud as to prevent the other from having a trial of the issues."
See, also, Hensley et al. v. Conard et al.,
This case falls within the rule as stated, and does not as is contended by the plaintiff, come within the exception to the rule recognized in El Rene Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Sutton,
McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and RILEY and GIBSON, JJ., concur.