Crow v. Wells

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Crow v. Wells

1930 OK 194, 287 P. 1041, 143 Okla. 69, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 548

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 29, 1930

Docket19405

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1930 OK 194 (Crow v. Wells) 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

Crow v. Wells, 1930 OK 194, 287 P. 1041, 143 Okla. 69, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 548 (Okla. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

HERR. C.

This is an action originally brought in the district court of Ottawa county by Homer Wells against Ed Crow to recover a real estate commission. Trial was to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment thereon in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

The first assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. Defendant neither demurred to nor moved for a directed verdict He, therefore, cannot, in this court, attack the sufficiency of the evidence. Smith v. Ferguson, 96 Okla. 150, 221 Pac. 447; Shackelford v. Goodnight, 94 Okla. 297, 222 Pac. 514.

Defendant sought to raise this question in the trial court by motion for new trial. This question cannot be raised iu this manner. Newton v. Okmulgee Wholesale Grocery Co., 88 Okla. 184, 212 Pac. 423; Beatty v. Moore, 133 Okla. 105, 239 Pac. 570.

Exceptions have been taken by defendant to several of the instructions given by the court. It is, however, conceded by him that these instructions correctly state the law, and they are only assailed on the ground that plaintiff, under the evidence, was not entitled to go to the jury under any theory of his case. The instructions correctly state the law on the theory upon which plaintiff’s case was cast, and defendant cannot, under the law, raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence in this manner.

Under the record here presented, nothing is before this court for review. Judgment should be affirmed.

BENNETT, DIFFENDAFFER, EAGLETON. and FOSTER, Commissioners, concur.

By the Court:

It so ordered.

Note. — See “Appeal and Error,” 3 C. J. §638, p. 745, n. 14; §746, p. 839, n. 40.

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

HERR. C.

This is an action originally brought in the district court of Ottawa county by Homer Wells against Ed Crow to recover a real estate commission. Trial was to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment thereon in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

The first assignment of error is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. Defendant neither demurred to nor moved for a directed verdict He, therefore, cannot, in this court, attack the sufficiency of the evidence. Smith v. Ferguson, 96 Okla. 150, 221 Pac. 447; Shackelford v. Goodnight, 94 Okla. 297, 222 Pac. 514.

Defendant sought to raise this question in the trial court by motion for new trial. This question cannot be raised iu this manner. Newton v. Okmulgee Wholesale Grocery Co., 88 Okla. 184, 212 Pac. 423; Beatty v. Moore, 133 Okla. 105, 239 Pac. 570.

Exceptions have been taken by defendant to several of the instructions given by the court. It is, however, conceded by him that these instructions correctly state the law, and they are only assailed on the ground that plaintiff, under the evidence, was not entitled to go to the jury under any theory of his case. The instructions correctly state the law on the theory upon which plaintiff’s case was cast, and defendant cannot, under the law, raise the question of the sufficiency of the evidence in this manner.

Under the record here presented, nothing is before this court for review. Judgment should be affirmed.

BENNETT, DIFFENDAFFER, EAGLETON. and FOSTER, Commissioners, concur.

By the Court:

It so ordered.

Note. — See “Appeal and Error,” 3 C. J. §638, p. 745, n. 14; §746, p. 839, n. 40.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1930 OK 194, 287 P. 1041, 143 Okla. 69, 1930 Okla. LEXIS 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crow-v-wells-okla-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack