Respondents do contend, however, under their "PROPOSITION ONE", that the answer applicants filed (with their application to be let in to defend) did not show "a meritorious defense" to the cause, or causes, of action for partition which they (respondents) alleged as "plaintiffs" in the petition they filed at the commencement of the partition action. In support of their position, respondents cite: Crouch v. Crouch, 59 Okla. 181, 158 P. 573, Featherstone v. Southwestern Lumber Co., 116 Okla. 86, 243 P. 240, Petros v. Fox-Vliet Drug Co., 138 Okla. 253, 280 P. 812, Oklahoma R. Co. v. Holt, 161 Okla. 165, 17 P.2d 955, Harlow Publishing Co. v. Tallant, 171 Okla. 579, 43 P.2d 106, Turner v. Dexter, 172 Okla. 252, 44 P.2d 984, In re Cannon's Estate, 179 Okla. 278, 65 P.2d 192, Methvin v. Mutual Savings Loan Ass'n., 180 Okla. 80, 67 P.2d 792, and Eudaly v. Superior Oil Co., Okla., 270 P.2d 335. The opinions in most of these cases do not purport to apply to proceedings under Section 176, supra, as distinguished from the judgment vacation proceedings provided for in other sections of our Statutes, such as Title 12 O.S. 1961 ยง 1031[ 12-1031]. As to the answer, to be filed by parties to whom Section 176, supra, applies, said section provides merely that it shall be "a full answer".
We deem it unnecessary to re-emphasize the above principle by copious quotations from prior decisions. The following opinions, some of which involve the question of vacating judgments rendered at prior terms on bail bonds, sufficiently announce that principle as emanating from the statute itself, any needed changes in which must be made by the Legislature and not by the court; Burton v. Swanson, supra; Hall et al. v. Holloway et al., 62 Okla. 192, 162 P. 186; McAdams v. Latham, 21 Okla. 511, 96 P. 584; Foltz v. Deshon, 122 Okla. 42, 249 P. 358; Provins v. Lovi, 6 Okla. 94, 50 P. 81; Thompson et al. v. Caddo County Bank, 15 Okla. 615, 82 P. 927; Petros v. Fox-Vliet Drug Co., 138 Okla. 253, 280 P. 812; Tracy et al. v. State ex rel. Fancher, Co. Atty., 60 Okla. 109, 159 P. 496; Gavin v. Heath, 125 Okla. 118, 256 P. 745. In particular see Grammer v. State, 105 Okla. 72, 231 P. 505; Seaba et al. v. State, 144 Okla. 295, 290 P. 1098; Price v. State, 169 Okla. 343, 37 P.2d 254.