From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Dorsson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 27, 1917
169 P. 1071 (Okla. 1917)

Opinion

No. 7759

Opinion Filed November 27, 1917. Rehearing Denied January 22, 1918.

(Syllabus.)

1. Appeal and Error — Question of Fact — Verdict.

Where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict, the finding of the jury will not be disturbed by this court on appeal.

2. New Trial — Verdict — Affidavits.

Affidavits of jurors will not be received to impeach the verdict of the jury.

Sharp, C. J., and Thacker and Rainey, JJ., dissenting.

Error from District Court, Logan County; A.H. Huston, Judge.

Action by Louis N. Baker, guardian of the person and estate of Catherine Rouse, against Julia Dorsson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

C.G. Hornor, O.R. Fegan, and T.C. Whiteley, for plaintiff in error.

C.C. Smith, for defendant in error.


This case is a suit on a note. The defense was payment. The issue raised by the pleadings was one of fact — whether or not the note sued on had been paid. That issue was under proper instructions submitted to a jury, and the jury found the issue in favor of the defendant.

There was much conflicting evidence, and we are asked to weigh the evidence and determine the issue thereunder in favor of the plaintiff. This court has time and time again said it would not do this; and we again repeat the statement that where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict, this court will not disturb the finding of the jury.

2. It is also urged that the court should have granted a new trial because of alleged misconduct of the jury, which the plaintiff attempted to establish by affidavits of certain members of the jury who tried the facts; the affidavits being to the effect that the jury, during their deliberations, discussed certain facts which were not in evidence. And plaintiff relies upon Carter State Bank v. Ross, 52 Okla. 642, 152 P. 1113, to support this contention. But in Egan v. First National Bank of Tulsa, 67 Okla. 162, 169 P. 621, handed down the 13th day of November, 1917, Carter State Bank v. Ross was overruled; and the doctrine announced that members of a jury will not be heard to impeach the verdict of the jury. And the law therein announced is controlling in this case.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.

SHARP, C. J., and THACKER and RAINEY, JJ., dissent. All the other Justices concur.


Summaries of

Baker v. Dorsson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Nov 27, 1917
169 P. 1071 (Okla. 1917)
Case details for

Baker v. Dorsson

Case Details

Full title:BAKER v. DORSSON

Court:Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date published: Nov 27, 1917

Citations

169 P. 1071 (Okla. 1917)
169 P. 1071

Citing Cases

Ponca City v. Swayne

"As counsel principally rely upon the affidavit of two of the jurors who participated in the trial to impeach…

Caldwell v. Crozier

In their consideration the contentions of plaintiff in support of the sufficiency of the evidence furnish the…