Barton v. Crane

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Barton v. Crane

1934 OK 5, 29 P.2d 52, 167 Okla. 161, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 464

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJanuary 16, 1934

Docket21763

StatusPublished

This text of 1934 OK 5 (Barton v. Crane) 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

Barton v. Crane, 1934 OK 5, 29 P.2d 52, 167 Okla. 161, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 464 (Okla. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

DUSBY, J.

This case involves a question of fact as to the value of certain second-hand furniture. The jury fixed its value at $50, and plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, appealed. No errors of law are urged. The only complaint of plaintiff in error is that the recovery fixed by the jury is inadequate. From an examination of the record we find that the case was fairly tried, the jury properly instructed, and that the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. One of the oldest established rules of this court is that “where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury, the same will not be disturbed on appeal.” After reading the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error and the evidence, we conclude there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal. Judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

RILEY, C. J.,-CULLISON, Y. C. J., and McNEILL and OSBORN, JJ., concur.

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

DUSBY, J.

This case involves a question of fact as to the value of certain second-hand furniture. The jury fixed its value at $50, and plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, appealed. No errors of law are urged. The only complaint of plaintiff in error is that the recovery fixed by the jury is inadequate. From an examination of the record we find that the case was fairly tried, the jury properly instructed, and that the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict. One of the oldest established rules of this court is that “where there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury, the same will not be disturbed on appeal.” After reading the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error and the evidence, we conclude there is no merit whatsoever in this appeal. Judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.

RILEY, C. J.,-CULLISON, Y. C. J., and McNEILL and OSBORN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1934 OK 5, 29 P.2d 52, 167 Okla. 161, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-crane-okla-1934.