First Nat. Bank of Checotah v. Lewis

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

First Nat. Bank of Checotah v. Lewis

1916 OK 948, 161 P. 175, 61 Okla. 247, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 871

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 14, 1916

Docket8028

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1916 OK 948 (First Nat. Bank of Checotah v. Lewis) 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 Nat. Bank of Checotah v. Lewis, 1916 OK 948, 161 P. 175, 61 Okla. 247, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 871 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

BURFORD, C.

The sole question raised in the brief of plaintiff in error is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict rendered herein. The ease turned upon the question of whether the bank had notice prior to taking a certain mortgage that the property alleged to be converted belonged to the minor, Frank T. Lewis. Upon this question the guardian was positive that there was such notice, the president of the bank was equally positive- that there was not. This was the only evidence upon that point. There were some circumstances proven tending to impeach the guardian’s veracity and good faith. The jury, however, believed him and the trial judge, whose duty it was to set aside the verdict, unless, after weighing the evidence, he believed the verdict to be right under the evidence and the law, sustained the verdict, rendered judgment upon it, and refused a new trial. It is axiomatic in this jurisdic tion that in a suit at law this court will not. set aside the verdict of a jury upon the weight of the evidence, there being some evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. After an examination of the record, as well as counsel’s brief, we are unable to say that there is no such evidence in this cause.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

BURFORD, C.

The sole question raised in the brief of plaintiff in error is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict rendered herein. The ease turned upon the question of whether the bank had notice prior to taking a certain mortgage that the property alleged to be converted belonged to the minor, Frank T. Lewis. Upon this question the guardian was positive that there was such notice, the president of the bank was equally positive- that there was not. This was the only evidence upon that point. There were some circumstances proven tending to impeach the guardian’s veracity and good faith. The jury, however, believed him and the trial judge, whose duty it was to set aside the verdict, unless, after weighing the evidence, he believed the verdict to be right under the evidence and the law, sustained the verdict, rendered judgment upon it, and refused a new trial. It is axiomatic in this jurisdic tion that in a suit at law this court will not. set aside the verdict of a jury upon the weight of the evidence, there being some evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. After an examination of the record, as well as counsel’s brief, we are unable to say that there is no such evidence in this cause.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 948, 161 P. 175, 61 Okla. 247, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bank-of-checotah-v-lewis-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack