Loomer v. Walker

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Loomer v. Walker

1916 OK 576, 157 P. 1055, 59 Okla. 44, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1092

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 23, 1916

Docket6962

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 1916 OK 576 (Loomer v. Walker) 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

Loomer v. Walker, 1916 OK 576, 157 P. 1055, 59 Okla. 44, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1092 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

WILSON, O.

This appeal is from a judgment of the district court of Carter county rendered in an action therein pending to recover a balance alleged to be due on a promissory note. At the trial of the case the outcome of the suit depended entirely on an issue of fact raised by the evidence as to whether certain checks which were offered in evidence should have been applied toward the payment of the note sued on, or to the payment of another note which defendant claimed had been previously paid, but which claim was disputed by the plaintiff. There was evidence in the case reasonably tending to sustain both contentions. The ease was tried by the court, a jury having been waived, and upon weighing the conflicting evidence the finding and judgment of the court was for the defendant and against theplaintiff, from which judgment, after a motion for a new trial had been filed and overruled, the case was appealed to this court.

No error is urged except that the judgment was not sustained by the evidence. It is a well-established rule in this jurisdiction that where the only error assigned on appeal in a law case, tried to the court, is that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, the supreme court will not weigh the evidence, but if it be found that there was any evidence reasonably tending to support the judgment, it will be affirmed. Pos- *45 toak v. Lee, 46 Okla. 477, 149 Pac. 155, and numerous other eases digested, in sees. 1010 and 1011 under the title of Appeal and Error. Oklahoma Cumulative Digest.

There being evidence in this case reasonably tending to support the judgment of'the trial court, the judgment should be affirmed; and it is so recommended.

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

WILSON, O.

This appeal is from a judgment of the district court of Carter county rendered in an action therein pending to recover a balance alleged to be due on a promissory note. At the trial of the case the outcome of the suit depended entirely on an issue of fact raised by the evidence as to whether certain checks which were offered in evidence should have been applied toward the payment of the note sued on, or to the payment of another note which defendant claimed had been previously paid, but which claim was disputed by the plaintiff. There was evidence in the case reasonably tending to sustain both contentions. The ease was tried by the court, a jury having been waived, and upon weighing the conflicting evidence the finding and judgment of the court was for the defendant and against theplaintiff, from which judgment, after a motion for a new trial had been filed and overruled, the case was appealed to this court.

No error is urged except that the judgment was not sustained by the evidence. It is a well-established rule in this jurisdiction that where the only error assigned on appeal in a law case, tried to the court, is that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, the supreme court will not weigh the evidence, but if it be found that there was any evidence reasonably tending to support the judgment, it will be affirmed. Pos- *45 toak v. Lee, 46 Okla. 477, 149 Pac. 155, and numerous other eases digested, in sees. 1010 and 1011 under the title of Appeal and Error. Oklahoma Cumulative Digest.

There being evidence in this case reasonably tending to support the judgment of'the trial court, the judgment should be affirmed; and it is so recommended.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1916 OK 576, 157 P. 1055, 59 Okla. 44, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 1092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loomer-v-walker-okla-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack