Plumer v. Pearce

4 Citing cases

  1. Video Independent Theatres, Inc. v. Cooper

    1966 OK 219 (Okla. 1967)   Cited 10 times

    Alleged discrepancies between plaintiff's testimony and his deposition went only to credibility of witness, and was a matter for determination in trial court. Flowers v. Stanley, Okla., 316 P.2d 840; the credibility of witnesses and the effect and weight to be given to conflicting or inconsistent testimony are questions of fact to be determined by the trier of the facts, whether court or jury, and are not questions of law for this Court on appeal. Plumer v. Pearce, 208 Okla. 526, 257 P.2d 813. This Court in reviewing a judgment entered upon jury's verdict must presume that the jury accepted as true the evidence which supports verdict. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Davis, 192 Okla. 429, 137 P.2d 548.

  2. In re Washam's Estate

    1961 OK 202 (Okla. 1961)   Cited 4 times

    Upon consideration of the entire situation it is our opinion that this presents a question of credibility of the witnesses. We have held that credibility of witnesses and effect and weight to be given to conflicting or inconsistent testimony are questions of fact to be determined by the trier of the facts, whether court or jury, and are not questions of law for the Supreme Court on appeal. Plumer v. Pearce, 208 Okla. 526, 257 P.2d 813. We conclude that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial on this ground.

  3. Flowers v. Stanley

    1957 OK 237 (Okla. 1957)   Cited 21 times
    In Flowers we held that defendant's fraudulent concealment of an altered deed tolled the statute of limitations in a suit to reform the deed against the defendant-grantor by the plaintiff-grantee.

    Suffice it to say that such argument is germane only to the credibility of those witnesses, which was for determination in the trial court. Plumer v. Pearce, 208 Okla. 526, 257 P.2d 813. There is nothing equivocal about the evidence introduced by plaintiffs on the principal substantive issue in the case, viz., whether or not the reservation provision was altered by insertion of the questioned wording before or after, the execution of the deed. As hereinbefore noted, the testimony of each of the four plaintiffs was positive that the interlineation effecting the 20-year limitation on its duration was not in the deed at the time they executed it.

  4. Clark v. Addison

    1957 OK 111 (Okla. 1957)   Cited 14 times

    The trial court was the trier of the facts. The credibility of witnesses and the effect and weight to be given to conflicting or inconsistent testimony are questions of fact to be determined by the trier of the facts, whether court or jury, and are not questions of law for this Court on appeal. Plumer v. Pearce, 208 Okla. 526, 257 P.2d 813; Payne v. Wade, 190 Okla. 222, 122 P.2d 144. Under the facts of this case, as determined by the trial court, it cannot be said that defendant's claim was one against either of the estates of the deceased joint adventurers, hence the contention of plaintiffs in error that a claim should have been filed against both estates or either of them is without merit.