Edwards v. Miller

9 Citing cases

  1. Stekoll v. Lebow

    219 P. 899 (Okla. 1922)   Cited 4 times

    The question of agency is a question of fact to be determined by the jury, and where there is any competent evidence in the record reasonably tending to support the finding of the jury, this court will not review the evidence to ascertain where the weight lies, nor interfere with the verdict of the jury which has received the approval of the trial court. Yukon Mills Grain Co. v. Imperial Roller Mills Co. 34 Okla. 817, 127 P. 422; Allen v. Kenyon, 30 Okla. 536, 119 P. 960; Kelly v. Wood, 32 Okla. 104, 120 P. 1110; Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. Humphrey, 27 Okla. 694, 117 P. 203; Ricker National Bank v. Stone, 21 Okla. 833, 97 P. 577; Horton v. Early, 39 Okla. 99, 134 P. 436; Mullen v. Thaxton, 24 Okla. 643, 104 P. 359; Wicker v. Denis, 30 Okla. 540, 119 P. 1112; Stem v. Adams, 30 Okla. 101, 118 P. 382; Caddo National Bank v. Moore, 30 Okla. 148, 120 P. 1003; Grimes v. Wilson, 30 Okla. 322, 120 P. 294; Edwards v. Miller, 30 Okla. 442, 120 P. 996; Prescott v. Brown, 30 Okla. 48, 120 P. 991. "Second.

  2. Sipes v. Dickinson

    136 P. 761 (Okla. 1913)   Cited 3 times

    This constitutes a good charge of fraud. This court has repeatedly so held. Hobbs v. Smith, 27 Okla. 830, 115 P. 347, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 697; Gilpin v. Netograph Machine Co. et al., 25 Okla. 408, 108 P. 382, 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 477; Clark et al. v. O'Toole et al., 20 Okla. 319, 94 P. 547; Prescott v. Brown, 30 Okla. 428, 120 P. 991; Edwards v. Miller, 30 Okla. 442, 120 P. 996. The petition construed liberally, as it must be in this connection, was good as against a general demurrer and amply sufficient to sustain the judgment, and in our opinion the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition to vacate on this ground.

  3. Sands v. David Bradley Co.

    129 P. 732 (Okla. 1913)   Cited 6 times

    The court submitted the issues to the jury, which by its general verdict resolved them all in favor of the plaintiff. We have read the evidence submitted, and find that it reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury; and such being the case the judgment rendered thereon is not reviewable here. Armstrong, Byrd Co. v. Crump, 25 Okla. 452, 106 P. 855; Caddo Nat. Bank v. Moore, 30 Okla. 148, 120 P. 1003; Grimes v. Wilson, 30 Okla. 322, 120 P. 294; Prescott v. Brown, 30 Okla. 428, 120 P. 991; Edwards v. Miller, 30 Okla. 442, 120 P. 996; Allen v. Kenyon, 30 Okla. 536, 119 P. 960; St. L. S. F. R. Co. v. Young, 30 Okla. 588, 120 P. 999; Bland v. Peters, 30 Okla. 798, 120 P. 631. Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the district court of Osage county should be affirmed.

  4. Lawless v. Raddis

    129 P. 711 (Okla. 1913)   Cited 7 times

    The assignment of error under consideration, involving, as it does, the determination of the facts, under the unchallenged allegations of the petition, will not authorize or warrant this court in disturbing the verdict of the jury, especially where there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the same. Caddo Nat. Bank v. Moore, 30 Okla. 148, 120 P. 1003; Grimes v. Wilson, 30 Okla. 322, 120 P. 294; Prescott v. Brown, supra; Allen v. Kenyon, 30 Okla. 536, 119 P. 960; Edwards v. Miller, 30 Okla. 442, 120 P. 996; Bland v. Peters, 30 Okla. 798, 120 P. 631. In this case we have no hesitancy in saying that there is ample competent evidence in the record to sustain the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court.

  5. Yukon Mills Grain Co. v. Imperial Roller Mills Co.

    127 P. 422 (Okla. 1912)   Cited 13 times

    It is a well-settled rule of this court that, where the testimony on any material issue is conflicting, and there is any competent evidence in the record reasonably tending to support the finding of the jury, this court will not review the evidence to ascertain where the weight lies, nor interfere with such finding of the court, or the verdict of the jury. Wicker v. Dennis, 30 Okla. 540, 119 P. 1122; Stem v. Adams, 30 Okla. 101, 118 P. 382; Caddo Nat. Bank v. Moore, 30 Okla. 148, 120 P. 1003; Grimes v. Wilson, 30 Okla. 322, 120 P. 294; Edwards v. Miller, 30 Okla. 442, 120 P. 996; Prescott v. Brown, 30 Okla. 428, 120 P. 991. Counsel for plaintiff objected to the introduction of certain evidence tending to establish the relation of principal and agent between the plaintiff and one Marlow. Agency is a fact to be determined by the jury, as any other fact. Port Huron Eng. Thresher Co. v. Ball, 30 Okla. 11, 118 P. 393; Allen v. Kenyon, 30 Okla. 536, 119 P. 960; Midland Savings Loan Co. v. Sutton, 30 Okla. 448, 120 P. 1007.

  6. Colonial Jewelry Co. v. Jones

    127 P. 405 (Okla. 1912)   Cited 5 times

    The answer set up a good defense of fraud and deceit in securing the execution of the contract sued on. The pleadings raised squarely a question of fact which was submitted to the jury under proper instructions by the court. There was, to be sure, a conflict in the evidence, but the jury, by its verdict, settled the issue in favor of the defendant, and it is a well-settled rule of this court that, where the evidence on a controlling issue or a material fact is conflicting, this court will not review the same to ascertain where the weight lies, but, if there is evidence reasonably tending to support the finding, the same will not be disturbed on appeal. Hobbs v. Smith, 27 Okla. 830, 115 P. 347, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 697; Harrill v. Parkinson, 27 Okla. 528, 112 P. 970; Ellison v. Bank, 27 Okla. 782, 117 P. 199; Edwards v. Miller, 30 Okla. 442, 120 P. 996. The instructions offered by the defendant and which were refused by the court were properly rejected, in that they were not applicable, and did not state the law of the case.

  7. Davis v. Williams

    121 P. 637 (Okla. 1912)   Cited 3 times

    " The amended petition fairly states a cause of action against the defendant for fraud and deceit, which allegations were denied by the defendant in his answer, and upon the issues thus formed evidence was introduced by both parties, the cause was submitted to the jury by the trial court, under proper and fair instructions, and the jury by its general verdict decided all questions of fact in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and, following the well-established rule of this court, where controverted questions of fact are submitted to the jury upon issues formed by the pleadings, and under proper instructions by the court, and the evidence thereof, though conflicting, reasonably tends to support the finding, such verdict will not be disturbed in this court on appeal. Hobbs v. Smith, 27 Okla. 830, 115 P. 347, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 697; Harrill v. Parkinson, 27 Okla. 528, 112 P. 970; Ellison v. Bank, 27 Okla. 782, 117 P. 199; Edwards v. Miller, 30 Okla. 442, 120 P. 996; Allen v. Kenyon, 30 Okla. 536, 119 P. 960. We feel constrained in passing to call attention of counsel to the fact that the case-made filed in this court has not been filed in the lower court, as required by statute, nor is the signature of the trial judge in the certificate settling the same attested by the seal of the court, or the signature of the clerk, as required by law.

  8. St. L. S. F. R. Co. v. Young

    120 P. 999 (Okla. 1912)   Cited 5 times
    In St. L. S. F. R. Co. v. Young, 30 Okla. 588, 120 P. 999, it was held that evidence of a much higher class than this was, perhaps, not the best class of evidence obtainable on the subject; but the evidence there was held to be competent, although it was expressly pointed out that the market value of the cattle at the point of origin was taken from the consideration of the jury by the court's instructions.

    There was some, without a doubt. In such case it is proper to submit the issue to a jury, and it is not the policy of this court to disturb the verdict on appeal. Edwards v. Miller, infra, 120 P. 996; Hobbs v. Smith, 27 Okla. 830, 115. Pac. 347, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 697; Harrill v. Parkinson, 27 Okla. 528, 112 P. 970; Ellison v. Bank, 27 Okla. 782, 117 P. 199. The next assignment of error to be noticed is that the court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's evidence.

  9. Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Sutton

    120 P. 1007 (Okla. 1911)   Cited 28 times

    In the case at bar there was much evidence offered on both sides on the question of agency and the authority of the agent; these controverted questions of fact were submitted to the jury under proper instructions, and, "Where there is evidence reasonably tending to sustain the issues on the part of the plaintiff, and the evidence on the part of the defendant conflicts therewith, the determination thereof is for the jury." Gann v. Ball, 26 Okla. 26, 110 P. 1067; Taylor v. Insurance Co. 25 Okla. 92, 105 P. 354, 138 Am. St. Rep. 906; Caddo Natl. Bank v. Moore, infra, 120 P. 1003; Edwards v. Miller, infra, 120 P. 996; Allen v. Kenyon, infra, 119 P. 960. For the reasons above, the judgment of the superior court of Pittsburg county should be affirmed.