State Tax Commission v. Larsen

I am of the opinion that the restrictive motion to quash service of summons after judgment either will not lie (see Gregg v. Seawell, 85 Okl. 88, 204 P. 908; Dannenburg v. Powers, 182 Okl. 404, 77 P. 2d 1142; Baldwin v. Burt, 54 Neb. 287, 74 N. W. 594), or if it may be entertained, then a ruling thereon is not an appealable order. In the latter instance the moving party, before he is entitled to review here of such order, must take the next step and move to set aside the judgment. The making of such motion, if restricted to jurisdictional grounds, would not constitute a general appearance. 3…