First Nat. Bank of Sallisaw v. Houston

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

First Nat. Bank of Sallisaw v. Houston

1911 OK 382, 119 P. 587, 31 Okla. 24, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 6

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 14, 1911

Docket1022

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1911 OK 382 (First Nat. Bank of Sallisaw v. Houston) 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 Sallisaw v. Houston, 1911 OK 382, 119 P. 587, 31 Okla. 24, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 6 (Okla. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

KANE, J.

This was an action commenced by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, against the defendant in error, defendant below, to recover certain moneys, which were alleged to be due the plaintiff from the defendant, in substance as follows : Said plaintiff held a mortgage against one Harvey Houston upon certain growing crops and live stock, which debt was evidenced by a promissory note payable to plaintiff; that said defendant," John Houston, agreed to pay said indebtedness in consideration of the plaintiff surrendering to him the said mortgaged property. After the issues were joined, there was a trial by jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, upon which judgment was duly entered, to reverse which this proceeding in error was commenced.

The defendant denied that he agreed to pay the debt of his brother Harvey Houston upon the mortgaged property being turned over to him, and testified that the agreement between himself and the bank was, in substance,-as follows: The defendant agreed to take charge of the crop, gather it, and pay it over to plaintiff, who agreed to pay him 75 cents per hundred for picking the cotton and $1 per load for hauling the cotton and corn. That under this agreement plaintiff received the sum of $41.40, after paying for picking, hauling, rents, etc. That the plaintiff offered to sell the property to the defendant for $135, the amount of Harvey Houston’s indebtedness to it, which proposal was rejected by him, and he afterwards stated that he would sell the cows for $45 and make certain other arrangements about the balance of the mortgaged property, and pay the balance, if any, which proposition was rejected by the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the defendant’s theory of the case, and, as there was evidence reasonably tending to support it, we are not at liberty to disturb it.

We have examined all the assignments of error, and we are of opinion that none of them warrant a reversal. The case turns principally upon a question of fact, and, as the issue joined was *26 fairly presented to the jury, and they decided it in favor of the defendant on the merits of the case, we are required by section 5680, Comp. Laws 1909, to disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not' affect the substantial rights'of the adverse party.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

TURNER, C. J., and DUNN and HAYES, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent and not participating.

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

KANE, J.

This was an action commenced by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, against the defendant in error, defendant below, to recover certain moneys, which were alleged to be due the plaintiff from the defendant, in substance as follows : Said plaintiff held a mortgage against one Harvey Houston upon certain growing crops and live stock, which debt was evidenced by a promissory note payable to plaintiff; that said defendant," John Houston, agreed to pay said indebtedness in consideration of the plaintiff surrendering to him the said mortgaged property. After the issues were joined, there was a trial by jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, upon which judgment was duly entered, to reverse which this proceeding in error was commenced.

The defendant denied that he agreed to pay the debt of his brother Harvey Houston upon the mortgaged property being turned over to him, and testified that the agreement between himself and the bank was, in substance,-as follows: The defendant agreed to take charge of the crop, gather it, and pay it over to plaintiff, who agreed to pay him 75 cents per hundred for picking the cotton and $1 per load for hauling the cotton and corn. That under this agreement plaintiff received the sum of $41.40, after paying for picking, hauling, rents, etc. That the plaintiff offered to sell the property to the defendant for $135, the amount of Harvey Houston’s indebtedness to it, which proposal was rejected by him, and he afterwards stated that he would sell the cows for $45 and make certain other arrangements about the balance of the mortgaged property, and pay the balance, if any, which proposition was rejected by the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the defendant’s theory of the case, and, as there was evidence reasonably tending to support it, we are not at liberty to disturb it.

We have examined all the assignments of error, and we are of opinion that none of them warrant a reversal. The case turns principally upon a question of fact, and, as the issue joined was *26 fairly presented to the jury, and they decided it in favor of the defendant on the merits of the case, we are required by section 5680, Comp. Laws 1909, to disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not' affect the substantial rights'of the adverse party.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

TURNER, C. J., and DUNN and HAYES, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent and not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1911 OK 382, 119 P. 587, 31 Okla. 24, 1911 Okla. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bank-of-sallisaw-v-houston-okla-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack