opinion: STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH v. UNITED STATES.
  No. 2671.
  Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
  June 21, 1943.
  W. L. Skanchy, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Grover A. Giles, J. Lambert Gibson, and Grant A. Brown, all of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellant.
  Wilma C. Martin, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (Norman M. Littell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dan B. Shields, U. S. Atty., of Salt Lake City, . Utah, and Vernon L. Wilkinson, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
  Before BRATTON, HUXMAN and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.
  BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
  The United States instituted this action to acquire by condemnation certain land in Box Elder County, Utah. The county was a party defendant. Judgment was entered reciting that the United States took possession of the premises on March 2, 1942, determining that the owners were liable for the taxes only for January and February, and adjudging that on payment of one-sixth of the taxes for that year each tract should be released of all lien for such taxes. Up to the time of the entry of the judgment, the State Tax Commission of Utah was not a party to the action; but thereafter it filed in the cause a petition challenging the correctness of the judgment in respect of the proration of the taxes and praying that it be vacated and set aside. An order was entered denying the petition, and the Commission appealed.
  Laying aside certain exceptions which do not have material bearing here, our jurisdiction is limited to review by appeal of final decisions. Reeves v. Beard-all, 316 U. S. 283, 62 S.Ct. 1085, 86 L.Ed. 1478; Crutcher v. Joyce, 10 Cir., 134 F.2d 809.
  This appeal was expressly taken from the order denying the petition to vacate and set aside the judgment. It was not from the judgment. In ordinary circumstances such as those presented here, an appeal will not lie from an order refusing to vacate or set aside a prior judgment or decree. Brockett v. Brockett, 2 How. 238, 11 L.Ed. 251; Wylie v. Coxe, 14 How. 1, 14 L.Ed. 301; McMicken v. Perin, 18 How. 507, 15 L.Ed. 504; Willis v. Davis, 6 Cir., 184 F. 889; International Bank v. Securities Corporation of District of Columbia, 59 App.D.C. 72, 32 F.2d 968; Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Hudson Auto Supply Co., D.C., 49 F.2d 654; Smith v. Gorlo, 7 Cir., 52 F.2d 848; Glinski v. United States 7 Cir., 93 F.2d 418; Bensen v. United States, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 749; Burns v. Ender Coal & Coke Co., 7 Cir., 104 F.2d 964.
  An application to set aside a judgment on the ground of invalidity for lack of service of process on the defendant is in effect an independent action or proceeding and an order denying such an application is therefore appealable. Stevirmac Oil & Gas Co. v. Dittman, 245 U.S. 210, 38 S.Ct. 116, 62 L.Ed. 248. But this appeal was not from an order of that kind.
  The appeal is dismissed.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is an appellant.
choices: not Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachussets Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South South Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming Virgin Puerto District Guam not Panama