Givens v. Western Paving Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Givens v. Western Paving Co.

1953 OK 242, 261 P.2d 450, 1953 Okla. LEXIS 516

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedSeptember 22, 1953

Docket35394

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 1953 OK 242 (Givens v. Western Paving Co.) 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

Givens v. Western Paving Co., 1953 OK 242, 261 P.2d 450, 1953 Okla. LEXIS 516 (Okla. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON,. Vice Chief Justice.

The plaintiff in error complains of the judgment of the trial court in a jury-waived civil action denying him recovery in his action wherein he sought a judgment to reimburse him the expenses of having to repave a street in a subdivision he was developing in Oklahoma City. He had contracted with the Western Paving Company to install a rock asphalt street surfacing on some streets in the addition, which the paving company did in December, 1948, and allegedly breached its agreement in that the surfacing was inadequate, insufficient and was installed in an unworkmanship manner so that it wholly disintegrated and washed away three weeks later when a heavy sleet and snow fell and melted, requiring it to be resurfaced or repaved.

The defendant filed a cross-petition seeking to recover the balance due under the contract. It contended that the surfacing disintegrated and washed away -because the gravel base which had been prepared by plaintiff in error was insufficient. On the other hand, plaintiff contended that irrespective of the sufficiency of the base the surfacing washed away before the street was ever used.

Plaintiff in error takes the position that the general finding and judgment of the court against him and in favor of the paving company on its cross-petition is contrary to the evidence and fundamentally wrong.

In jury-waived civil actions trial court’s findings have force and effect of the jury’s verdict and when finding is general it is finding of every specific thing necessary to be found sustaining general judgment and such judgment will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence óf legal errors, if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the trial court’s conclusion. The credibility of the various witnesses and weight and value to be given to their testimony is for the jury or for the trial court on waiver of a jury, and conclusions there reached will not be disturbed on appeal, un *452 less appearing clearly to be based upon caprice or to be without any reasonable foundation. Lowe v. Hickory, 176 Okl. 426, 55 P.2d 769.

We have carefully considered the whole record and 'all the evidence pertaining to the issues and find the evidence ample to sustain the judgment.

Affirmed.

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

JOHNSON,. Vice Chief Justice.

The plaintiff in error complains of the judgment of the trial court in a jury-waived civil action denying him recovery in his action wherein he sought a judgment to reimburse him the expenses of having to repave a street in a subdivision he was developing in Oklahoma City. He had contracted with the Western Paving Company to install a rock asphalt street surfacing on some streets in the addition, which the paving company did in December, 1948, and allegedly breached its agreement in that the surfacing was inadequate, insufficient and was installed in an unworkmanship manner so that it wholly disintegrated and washed away three weeks later when a heavy sleet and snow fell and melted, requiring it to be resurfaced or repaved.

The defendant filed a cross-petition seeking to recover the balance due under the contract. It contended that the surfacing disintegrated and washed away -because the gravel base which had been prepared by plaintiff in error was insufficient. On the other hand, plaintiff contended that irrespective of the sufficiency of the base the surfacing washed away before the street was ever used.

Plaintiff in error takes the position that the general finding and judgment of the court against him and in favor of the paving company on its cross-petition is contrary to the evidence and fundamentally wrong.

In jury-waived civil actions trial court’s findings have force and effect of the jury’s verdict and when finding is general it is finding of every specific thing necessary to be found sustaining general judgment and such judgment will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence óf legal errors, if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the trial court’s conclusion. The credibility of the various witnesses and weight and value to be given to their testimony is for the jury or for the trial court on waiver of a jury, and conclusions there reached will not be disturbed on appeal, un *452 less appearing clearly to be based upon caprice or to be without any reasonable foundation. Lowe v. Hickory, 176 Okl. 426, 55 P.2d 769.

We have carefully considered the whole record and 'all the evidence pertaining to the issues and find the evidence ample to sustain the judgment.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1953 OK 242, 261 P.2d 450, 1953 Okla. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/givens-v-western-paving-co-okla-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack