Bradberry v. Gower

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Bradberry v. Gower

447 S.W.2d 124, 247 Ark. 700

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 24, 1969

Docket5-5084

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 447 S.W.2d 124 (Bradberry v. Gower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradberry v. Gower, 447 S.W.2d 124, 247 Ark. 700 (Ark. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Conley Byrd, Justice.

In this unlawful detainer action, appellant Dudley Bradberry admits that he has been in possession of lands belonging to appellees Frank Gower, Tommy Thompson, Virginia Thompson, Bill Foster and M.ary Foster as a tenant from year to year and that he was served with proper six months notice to quit and vacaté the premises. Appellant’s defense in the trial court was that a new oral lease had been entered into between himself and Frank Gower after he was served with the termination notices. Appellant’s testimony was corroborated by his son and two long time employees relative to a conversation around a combine in a field. Appellee Gower denied that such a conversation took place. The jury found the facts contrary to appellant’s position.

For reversal, appellant asserts that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. We find no merit in this contention. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and we must affirm when there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding.

Affirmed with directions to the Clerk of this Court to issue an immediate mandate..

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

Conley Byrd, Justice.

In this unlawful detainer action, appellant Dudley Bradberry admits that he has been in possession of lands belonging to appellees Frank Gower, Tommy Thompson, Virginia Thompson, Bill Foster and M.ary Foster as a tenant from year to year and that he was served with proper six months notice to quit and vacaté the premises. Appellant’s defense in the trial court was that a new oral lease had been entered into between himself and Frank Gower after he was served with the termination notices. Appellant’s testimony was corroborated by his son and two long time employees relative to a conversation around a combine in a field. Appellee Gower denied that such a conversation took place. The jury found the facts contrary to appellant’s position.

For reversal, appellant asserts that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. We find no merit in this contention. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and we must affirm when there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding.

Affirmed with directions to the Clerk of this Court to issue an immediate mandate..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 S.W.2d 124, 247 Ark. 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradberry-v-gower-ark-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack