Gahan v. Hart

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Gahan v. Hart

1923 OK 988, 224 P. 494, 97 Okla. 243, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 925

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedNovember 20, 1923

Docket12199

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1923 OK 988 (Gahan v. Hart) 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

Gahan v. Hart, 1923 OK 988, 224 P. 494, 97 Okla. 243, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 925 (Okla. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

MAXEY, C.

There is no very great difficulty in deciding this case. The court has found the facts on each controverted question against the plaintiff in error and, under the rule of this court, that where in an equity case the court makes findings of fact, that it is entitled to the same weight and consideration as the verdict of the jury, and unless the findings of facts are clearly against the weight of the evidence they should not be disturbed; and the same is true of a law case where the case is submitted to the court without, a jury and the court submits findings of fact, such findings will not be disturbed on the weight of the evidence. City of Chickasha v. Looney, 36 Okla. 155, 128 Pac. 136; Bailey v. Williamson-Halsell-Frazier Co., 44 Okla. 586, 145 Pac. 412; Pall City Clothing Co. v Sweazea, 61 Okla. 154, 160 Pac. 728; Schaffer et al. v. Lee, 64 Okla. 106, 166 Pac. 94; Sims v. Ward, 78 Okla. 72, 88 Pac. 884.

We have carefully read all of the testimony in the case and the comment of counsel on the testimony in their briefs, and we think the findings of facts on the controverted questions in the case as made by the court are sustained by the evidence. The court in its conclusions of law adds as an additional reason for giving judgment against the plaintiff that the action is barred by the statute of limitation. The contract that plaintiff alleges he had with Stephens was verbal, and there is no evidence in the record to sustain it. Stephens’ death, no doubt, silenced the controversy as to whether there was such a contract, and the court evidently held that the case was barred under the five year statute of limitation, and we think the court was right

The case seems to have been carefully tried and the findings of facts and conclusions of law are clearly set cut, and as said before, the findings of facts are supported by the testimony, and from a reading of the record, we are unable to find any theory upon which the plaintiff is entitled to recover. We, therefore, recommend that the judgment of the trial court be íd all things 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

MAXEY, C.

There is no very great difficulty in deciding this case. The court has found the facts on each controverted question against the plaintiff in error and, under the rule of this court, that where in an equity case the court makes findings of fact, that it is entitled to the same weight and consideration as the verdict of the jury, and unless the findings of facts are clearly against the weight of the evidence they should not be disturbed; and the same is true of a law case where the case is submitted to the court without, a jury and the court submits findings of fact, such findings will not be disturbed on the weight of the evidence. City of Chickasha v. Looney, 36 Okla. 155, 128 Pac. 136; Bailey v. Williamson-Halsell-Frazier Co., 44 Okla. 586, 145 Pac. 412; Pall City Clothing Co. v Sweazea, 61 Okla. 154, 160 Pac. 728; Schaffer et al. v. Lee, 64 Okla. 106, 166 Pac. 94; Sims v. Ward, 78 Okla. 72, 88 Pac. 884.

We have carefully read all of the testimony in the case and the comment of counsel on the testimony in their briefs, and we think the findings of facts on the controverted questions in the case as made by the court are sustained by the evidence. The court in its conclusions of law adds as an additional reason for giving judgment against the plaintiff that the action is barred by the statute of limitation. The contract that plaintiff alleges he had with Stephens was verbal, and there is no evidence in the record to sustain it. Stephens’ death, no doubt, silenced the controversy as to whether there was such a contract, and the court evidently held that the case was barred under the five year statute of limitation, and we think the court was right

The case seems to have been carefully tried and the findings of facts and conclusions of law are clearly set cut, and as said before, the findings of facts are supported by the testimony, and from a reading of the record, we are unable to find any theory upon which the plaintiff is entitled to recover. We, therefore, recommend that the judgment of the trial court be íd all things affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1923 OK 988, 224 P. 494, 97 Okla. 243, 1923 Okla. LEXIS 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gahan-v-hart-okla-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack