First Bank of Hoffman v. Harrison

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

First Bank of Hoffman v. Harrison

1911 OK 261, 116 P. 789, 29 Okla. 302, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 289

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJuly 11, 1911

Docket971

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1911 OK 261 (First Bank of Hoffman v. Harrison) 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

First Bank of Hoffman v. Harrison, 1911 OK 261, 116 P. 789, 29 Okla. 302, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 289 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLIAMS, J.

This is an action in replevin commenced *303 by the plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, in the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory at Muskogee against the defendant in error, as defendant, for the recovery of two horses and certain corn and cotton. At the time of the erection of the state said cause was transferred to the district court of Muskogee county. The plaintiff claims the right to the possession of said chattels by virtue of a certain mortgage. The defendant denied its execution. The issues were submitted to the jury under proper instructions and a verdict rendered in. favor of the defendant. Neither was any exception saved nor is any complaint made in this court as to the instructions to the jury in the trial court.

Plaintiff in error complains of certain evidence brought out on the cross-examination of its witnesses, who were officers of the plaintiff bank, by counsel for the defendant. These objections seem to be without merit. The question at issue was whether the mortgage upon which the action was based was executed by the defendant. If it was, the court instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to prevail, otherwise the verdict should be for the defendant. The defendant admitted that he had borrowed certain sums of money from the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s theory was that such sums of money were a part of the consideration of the mortgage. On cross-examination evidence was brought out to show where defendant had paid plaintiff’s officers certain sums of money, evidently on the theory that this transaction accorded with defendant’s theory. The case seems to have been fairly tried under proper instructions. There was substantial evidence upon' which the jury could find a verdict in favor of the defendant. Such being the case, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

WILLIAMS, J.

This is an action in replevin commenced *303 by the plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, in the United States Court for the Western District of the Indian Territory at Muskogee against the defendant in error, as defendant, for the recovery of two horses and certain corn and cotton. At the time of the erection of the state said cause was transferred to the district court of Muskogee county. The plaintiff claims the right to the possession of said chattels by virtue of a certain mortgage. The defendant denied its execution. The issues were submitted to the jury under proper instructions and a verdict rendered in. favor of the defendant. Neither was any exception saved nor is any complaint made in this court as to the instructions to the jury in the trial court.

Plaintiff in error complains of certain evidence brought out on the cross-examination of its witnesses, who were officers of the plaintiff bank, by counsel for the defendant. These objections seem to be without merit. The question at issue was whether the mortgage upon which the action was based was executed by the defendant. If it was, the court instructed the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to prevail, otherwise the verdict should be for the defendant. The defendant admitted that he had borrowed certain sums of money from the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s theory was that such sums of money were a part of the consideration of the mortgage. On cross-examination evidence was brought out to show where defendant had paid plaintiff’s officers certain sums of money, evidently on the theory that this transaction accorded with defendant’s theory. The case seems to have been fairly tried under proper instructions. There was substantial evidence upon' which the jury could find a verdict in favor of the defendant. Such being the case, the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 261, 116 P. 789, 29 Okla. 302, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-bank-of-hoffman-v-harrison-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack