Anderson v. Chrisman

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Anderson v. Chrisman

1913 OK 129, 130 P. 539, 37 Okla. 73, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 980

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 18, 1913

Docket2539

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1913 OK 129 (Anderson v. Chrisman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Chrisman, 1913 OK 129, 130 P. 539, 37 Okla. 73, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 980 (Okla. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

BREWER, C.

The court in this case set aside the verdict of the jury, on its own motion, without a motion being filed by either side in any wise complaining of the verdict. This action by the court was taken twenty days after the verdict was returned. The appellant here was defendant below against whom the verdict was rendered. The reasons given by the court for disturbing a verdict of the jury which was apparently satisfactory to both parties is stated by the court as follows:

“For the reason that the court was of the opinion that the matter involved in this action should be tried out in case No. 636 on the trial docket of this court, which is a suit in equity for the dissolution of a partnership, accounting, and settlement of the partnership affairs in which action all the rights of the *74 parties hereto can be determined; Prank M. Anderson and one John H. Harris being plaintiffs, and said George C. Chrisman, defendant,” etc.

The reason of the court being stated fully ■ and in detail, it must be presumed that there was no other reason for the action taken. This reason was not a sufficient one for disturbing the verdict of the jury. There is not a suggestion of fraud, collusion, or that the court had in any way been imposed upon, nor even that the verdict was an erroneous or improper one. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the inherent powers of the court, in controlling its process and judgments during the term; if the power exercised in this case exists, and if Long v. County Commissioners, 5 Okla. 128, 47 Pac. 1063, takes too narrow a view of the law, which it is not' necessary here 'to decide, yet still the court, under the facts of this case, erred in setting aside a verdict acquiesced in by the litigants. The cause should be reversed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

BREWER, C.

The court in this case set aside the verdict of the jury, on its own motion, without a motion being filed by either side in any wise complaining of the verdict. This action by the court was taken twenty days after the verdict was returned. The appellant here was defendant below against whom the verdict was rendered. The reasons given by the court for disturbing a verdict of the jury which was apparently satisfactory to both parties is stated by the court as follows:

“For the reason that the court was of the opinion that the matter involved in this action should be tried out in case No. 636 on the trial docket of this court, which is a suit in equity for the dissolution of a partnership, accounting, and settlement of the partnership affairs in which action all the rights of the *74 parties hereto can be determined; Prank M. Anderson and one John H. Harris being plaintiffs, and said George C. Chrisman, defendant,” etc.

The reason of the court being stated fully ■ and in detail, it must be presumed that there was no other reason for the action taken. This reason was not a sufficient one for disturbing the verdict of the jury. There is not a suggestion of fraud, collusion, or that the court had in any way been imposed upon, nor even that the verdict was an erroneous or improper one. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the inherent powers of the court, in controlling its process and judgments during the term; if the power exercised in this case exists, and if Long v. County Commissioners, 5 Okla. 128, 47 Pac. 1063, takes too narrow a view of the law, which it is not' necessary here 'to decide, yet still the court, under the facts of this case, erred in setting aside a verdict acquiesced in by the litigants. The cause should be reversed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1913 OK 129, 130 P. 539, 37 Okla. 73, 1912 Okla. LEXIS 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-chrisman-okla-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack