Jones v. Stedman Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Jones v. Stedman Co.

1937 OK 76, 65 P.2d 1007, 179 Okla. 291, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 401

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 2, 1937

DocketNo. 27073.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1937 OK 76 (Jones v. Stedman 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

Jones v. Stedman Co., 1937 OK 76, 65 P.2d 1007, 179 Okla. 291, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 401 (Okla. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court. This action was commenced to recover the balance due on 1wo promissory notes executed by the defendant to the plaintiff and secured by certain fixtures in a meat market owned by the defendant.

The original indebtedness became delinquent, and in an agreement made with relation to readjusting the amounts due,' the plaintiff took back certain of the .fixtures and appliances and the dispute arose as to the amount of credit to be given in the transaction and the resulting balance due.

It was the contention of the defendant that all that remained due was $20.77 on the first note, and that the obligation evidenced by the second note was completely canceled by the delivery of certain chattels. A judgment for $105 was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The trial was to the court without a jury. The plaintiff makes no complaint of the judgment.

*292 The defendant contends that if his evidence is believed the court should have entered judgment for $20.77, and if the evidence of the plaintiff is believed the plaintiff is entitled to the amount sued for, which is $583.77, and cites in support thereof Hammer v. Merritt, 42 Kan. 32, 21 P. 783. An examination of" that case will disclose that it is not in point. The opinion does not disclose whether the plaintiff in that case was complaining of the judgment rendered. In any event, on its facts the plaintiff was entitled to 5 per cent, of a stipulated amount as commission, or nothing. Here there was a disputed question of fact as to the amount due, and we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the judgment of the court. The plaintiff does not complain of the judgment of the court, and the error, if any, assuming that the court believed the testimony of the plaintiff, is against the plaintiff.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

OSBORN, O. J., BATLESS, V. O. J., and BUSBT, PHELPS, CORN, and HURST, JJ., concur. RILEY, WELCH, and GIBSON, JJ., absent.

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

PER CURIAM.

The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court. This action was commenced to recover the balance due on 1wo promissory notes executed by the defendant to the plaintiff and secured by certain fixtures in a meat market owned by the defendant.

The original indebtedness became delinquent, and in an agreement made with relation to readjusting the amounts due,' the plaintiff took back certain of the .fixtures and appliances and the dispute arose as to the amount of credit to be given in the transaction and the resulting balance due.

It was the contention of the defendant that all that remained due was $20.77 on the first note, and that the obligation evidenced by the second note was completely canceled by the delivery of certain chattels. A judgment for $105 was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The trial was to the court without a jury. The plaintiff makes no complaint of the judgment.

*292 The defendant contends that if his evidence is believed the court should have entered judgment for $20.77, and if the evidence of the plaintiff is believed the plaintiff is entitled to the amount sued for, which is $583.77, and cites in support thereof Hammer v. Merritt, 42 Kan. 32, 21 P. 783. An examination of" that case will disclose that it is not in point. The opinion does not disclose whether the plaintiff in that case was complaining of the judgment rendered. In any event, on its facts the plaintiff was entitled to 5 per cent, of a stipulated amount as commission, or nothing. Here there was a disputed question of fact as to the amount due, and we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the judgment of the court. The plaintiff does not complain of the judgment of the court, and the error, if any, assuming that the court believed the testimony of the plaintiff, is against the plaintiff.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

OSBORN, O. J., BATLESS, V. O. J., and BUSBT, PHELPS, CORN, and HURST, JJ., concur. RILEY, WELCH, and GIBSON, JJ., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1937 OK 76, 65 P.2d 1007, 179 Okla. 291, 1937 Okla. LEXIS 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-stedman-co-okla-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack