Mullen et al. v. Robison

5 Citing cases

  1. Haskell Nat. Bank v. Stewart

    184 P. 573 (Okla. 1919)   Cited 2 times

    1. Appeal and Error — Remittitur on Appeal — Judgment. In an action for conversion of property when plaintiff recovers judgment, and on appeal the only assignment of error upon the question of the conversion of the property is that the verdict of the jury, and judgment rendered thereon, in the sum of $394, is excessive, because the uncontradicted evidence discloses the value of the property was only $357, and the plaintiff admits that the verdict is excessive in the sum of $37, and offers to remit said amount, the judgment will be modified to that extent and affirmed, following the rule announced in the case of Mullen v. Robinson, 30 Okla. 527. 120 P. 1099. 2.

  2. First National Bank of Tishomingo v. Ingle

    37 Okla. 276 (Okla. 1912)   Cited 20 times

    When so construed, if they properly state the law, they will not be subject to exception, although some numbered instructions or portion thereof, standing alone, may be misleading. 10. APPEAL AND ERROR — Disposition of Cause — Affirmance on Condition. Same as that in paragraph 4 of syllabus in Mullen et al. v. Robinson, 30 Okla. 527, 120 P. 1099. (Syllabus by Sharp, C.)

  3. Finch v. American State Bank

    223 P. 631 (Okla. 1924)   Cited 3 times

    "It appearing from the pleadings and evidence that the jury rendered judgment for the full amount of the note sued for without allowing credit for the sum of $100 paid theron, or for interest to the 17th day of June, 1921; the plaintiff in open court announces that it remits from the amount of the verdict the sum of $100 and interest prior to the date last above written." In the case of Mullen v. Robinson, 30 Okla. 527, 120 P. 1099, it is said: "The fact that error was committed in the trial court whereby judgment was rendered for a greater amount than prayed for in plaintiffs' petition does not necessarily require a new trial. If it can clearly be seen that the defendant could not have been prejudiced thereby to more than a certain amount, and plaintiff consents to remit that much of his recovery, judgment may be affirmed for the residue."

  4. Fitch v. Green

    134 P. 34 (Okla. 1913)   Cited 6 times

    "When a judgment or final order is reversed, the plaintiff in error shall recover his costs, including the costs of the transcript of the proceedings, or case-made, filed with the petition in error; and, when reversed in part and affirmed in part, costs shall be equally divided between the parties." In Mullen et al. v. Robinson et al., 30 Okla. 527, 120 P. 1099, it is suggested that, where an appeal is not alone upon the question requiring a reversal, but for a remittitur, the reasons which might be urged in favor of taxing all the costs against defendant in error, where the appeal is alone upon such question, do not exist. We are of opinion that the costs of appeal should be divided between the parties to this action.

  5. Barnes v. Davis

    120 P. 275 (Okla. 1911)   Cited 4 times

    With reference to the admission of evidence, the plaintiff in error has not complied with the rules of the court relative to setting out the evidence about which he complains. Great WesternMfg. Co. v. Davidson Mill Elev. Co., 26 Okla. 626, 110 P. 1096; Mullen v. Robison, infra, 120 P. 1099. The other exceptions relate to the giving of instructions, and it would be sufficient to dispose of these by saying that no sufficient exception was taken to them, but, giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt on this point, an examination of the instructions discloses that they were liberal to the plaintiff, as appears from the fifth and sixth, as given by the court: