Byers v. Sharp

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Byers v. Sharp

1915 OK 793, 153 P. 127, 49 Okla. 456, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 66

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 12, 1915

Docket4752

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1915 OK 793 (Byers v. Sharp) 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

Byers v. Sharp, 1915 OK 793, 153 P. 127, 49 Okla. 456, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 66 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

TURNER, J.

On October 28, 1909, Ben Byers, plaintiff in error, sued W. B. Sharp, defendant in error, before a justice of the peace in Atoka county in replevin for certain personal property, claiming special ownership therein by virtue of a chattel mortgage thereon made, executed, and delivered to him by R. M. Sharp, a brother of defendant. He recovered. The cause was appealed to the county court. There defendant answered, and, in effect, after a general denial, admitted possession of the property thus:

“That the possession of the defendant of the property described herein, which he had possession of at the time of the filing of this suit, was as agent of the Merchants’ National Bank of Lehigh, Oklahoma, who had a special interest therein,” etc.

To maintain the issues on his part plaintiff proved a prima facie case in all respects, except (relying on said solemn admission) to prove that defendant was in possession of the property sued for at the time the action was commenced. To defeat recovery defendant, on his part, without objection, proved that he took possession of the property under a claim of right immediately after the death of his brother, R. M. Sharp, and sold the same, and parted with possession thereof long before the insti *458 tution of the suit, and had not possession thereof at that time, and the fact stands uncontroverted in the evidence. At the close of all the evidence the defendant moved the court to direct a verditet in his favor, which was done. There was no error in this. When defendant, without objection, proved, as he did, that he had sold and parted with possession of the property prior to the commencement of the suit and had not possession thereof at that time, his answer stood amended to conform to the proof and superseded the solemn admission which, not being introduced in evidence by plaintiff at the time the court passed upon the motion to direct a verdict, could not be considered by the court in passing. In Lane v. Choctaw, Okla. & Gulf Ry. Co., 19 Okla. 382, 91 Pac. 883, Burford, C. J., said:

“The weight of authority and better reasoned cases support the rule that a pleading or an admission or allegation in a pleading, notwithstanding it may have been withdrawn, stricken out or superseded by an amended pleading, is competent in evidence, and may be introduced against the party from whom it proceeded, like any other admission or declaration, subject, however, to explanation by the party who made it. This rule rests on the general principle that whatever a party has said about his case may be proved against him, and whatever writing he has signed or authorized may be, if relevant, introduced against him, the weight of such evidence to be left to the court or jury, trying.the case (citing authorities). In this case the superseded petition was not intrdouced in evidence, and its contents were not proper to be considered, either as admissions of record or as evidence in the case. The rights of the parties should have been determined upon the averments contained in the pleadings upon which the cause proceeded to trial, regardless of any former *459 pleadings, unless properly offered and admitted in evidence.”

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

TURNER, J.

On October 28, 1909, Ben Byers, plaintiff in error, sued W. B. Sharp, defendant in error, before a justice of the peace in Atoka county in replevin for certain personal property, claiming special ownership therein by virtue of a chattel mortgage thereon made, executed, and delivered to him by R. M. Sharp, a brother of defendant. He recovered. The cause was appealed to the county court. There defendant answered, and, in effect, after a general denial, admitted possession of the property thus:

“That the possession of the defendant of the property described herein, which he had possession of at the time of the filing of this suit, was as agent of the Merchants’ National Bank of Lehigh, Oklahoma, who had a special interest therein,” etc.

To maintain the issues on his part plaintiff proved a prima facie case in all respects, except (relying on said solemn admission) to prove that defendant was in possession of the property sued for at the time the action was commenced. To defeat recovery defendant, on his part, without objection, proved that he took possession of the property under a claim of right immediately after the death of his brother, R. M. Sharp, and sold the same, and parted with possession thereof long before the insti *458 tution of the suit, and had not possession thereof at that time, and the fact stands uncontroverted in the evidence. At the close of all the evidence the defendant moved the court to direct a verditet in his favor, which was done. There was no error in this. When defendant, without objection, proved, as he did, that he had sold and parted with possession of the property prior to the commencement of the suit and had not possession thereof at that time, his answer stood amended to conform to the proof and superseded the solemn admission which, not being introduced in evidence by plaintiff at the time the court passed upon the motion to direct a verdict, could not be considered by the court in passing. In Lane v. Choctaw, Okla. & Gulf Ry. Co., 19 Okla. 382, 91 Pac. 883, Burford, C. J., said:

“The weight of authority and better reasoned cases support the rule that a pleading or an admission or allegation in a pleading, notwithstanding it may have been withdrawn, stricken out or superseded by an amended pleading, is competent in evidence, and may be introduced against the party from whom it proceeded, like any other admission or declaration, subject, however, to explanation by the party who made it. This rule rests on the general principle that whatever a party has said about his case may be proved against him, and whatever writing he has signed or authorized may be, if relevant, introduced against him, the weight of such evidence to be left to the court or jury, trying.the case (citing authorities). In this case the superseded petition was not intrdouced in evidence, and its contents were not proper to be considered, either as admissions of record or as evidence in the case. The rights of the parties should have been determined upon the averments contained in the pleadings upon which the cause proceeded to trial, regardless of any former *459 pleadings, unless properly offered and admitted in evidence.”

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 793, 153 P. 127, 49 Okla. 456, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byers-v-sharp-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack