JUDGMENT — Former decision holding judgment could not be collaterally impeached in action in another court between same parties upon same subject matter does not bar direct attack against judgment in court where rendered. The decision of this court in the case of Anne Hill v. John T. Cole, Executor, 192 Okla. 476, 137 P.2d 579, holding that superior court judgment, free from jurisdictional defects, may not be collaterally impeached in action in district court between the same parties and upon the same subject matter, does not bar a direct attack against said judgment by proper proceedings in the court in which it was rendered. Appeal from Superior Court, Okmulgee County; Harland A. Carter, Judge.
Lucy v. Deas, 59 Fla. 552, 52 So. 515, 516; Mahoney v. State Ins. Co., 133 Iowa 570, 110 N.W. 1041, 1042, 1043, 9 L.R.A., N.S., 490; Bradburn v. McIntosh, 10 Cir., 159 F.2d 925; Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., Vol. 1, § 331. See, also, Hill v. Cole, 192 Okla. 476, 137 P.2d 579, 581; Skipper v. Schumacher, 124 Fla. 384, 169 So. 58, 66; Bleakley v. Barclay, 75 Kan. 462, 89 P. 906, 909, 10 L.R.A., N.S., 230; State ex rel. Adam v. Martin, 198 Ind. 516, 154 N.E. 284, 287. Equitable relief from a judgment may be obtained on the ground of extrinsic or collateral fraud.
Lucy v. Deas, 59 Fla. 552, 52 So. 515, 516; Mahoney v. State Ins. Co., 133 Iowa 570. 110 N.W. 1041, 1042, 1043, 9 L.R.A., N.S., 490; Freeman on Judgments, 5th Ed., Vol. 1, § 331. See, also, Hill v. Cole, 192 Okla. 476, 137 P.2d 579, 581; Skipper v. Schumacher, 124 Fla. 384, 169 So. 58, 66; Bleakley v. Barclay, 75 Kan. 462, 89 P. 906, 909, 10 L.R.A., N.S., 230; State ex rel. Adam v. Martin, 198 Ind. 516, 154 N.E. 284, 287. Equitable relief from a judgment may be obtained on the ground of extrinsic or collateral fraud.
There was, therefore, identity of causes of action and identity of parties in both the Tulsa county action and the instant case. In Hill v. Cole, 192 Okla. 476, 137 P.2d 579, we said: "The pleadings reflect a great number of allegations which might constitute fraud in the procurement of the judgment and the release of same. That does not go to the jurisdiction and cannot avail plaintiff in this collateral attack upon the judgment.
She does not contend that if this procedure has been followed there would have been any error in the action of the trial court in rendering judgment for the defendants. In Hill v. Cole, 192 Okla. 476, 137 P.2d 579, we held that where the pleadings disclose no issue of fact as relates to a plea of res judicata, only law questions are thereby presented, and the trial court does not err in sustaining an objection to the introduction of evidence and dismissing plaintiff's cause where the action is shown by the pleadings to be barred by former judgment. To the same effect see First National Bank of Duncan v. Martin, 162 Okla. 289, 20 P.2d 889, and American Bank Trust Co. of Ardmore v. Frensley, 167 Okla. 533, 30 P.2d 883.