Lucas v. Brakefield

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Lucas v. Brakefield

1899 OK 53, 57 P. 166, 8 Okla. 284, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 61

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 10, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1899 OK 53 (Lucas v. Brakefield) 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

Lucas v. Brakefield, 1899 OK 53, 57 P. 166, 8 Okla. 284, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 61 (Okla. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the court by

McAtee, J.:

Some immaterial matters, entitled, “Suggestion- of Amendments,” and “Supplemental Bill of Particulars and Plea of Estoppel,” are admitted to have been included in tbe record after tbe rendition of judgment, and without leave of court. They are no part of tbe case, and are not considered bere.

Tbe grounds upon which tbe motion for a new trial was made were (1) that tbe verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to it; (2) was contrary to law; and (3) for errors of law occurring at tbe trial. Tbe only proposition argued in tbe brief of plaintiffs in error was that tbe verdict was not sustained by tbe evidence.

Tbbe evidence tended to show that tbe wheat was seized by the sheriff of Canadian county under an execution issued upon a void judgment which bad been rendered by a justice of tbe peace of that county, in which action Brakefield was defendant, and that the property was sold thereunder as tbe property of Brakefield. Evidence was given to tbe jury to show that tbe wheat was raised upon tbe farm of Brakefield, where be lived in January, 1894; that tbe work was done by bis son and a hired man; that it was bis own property, and was sold against bis protest at tbe time. Evidence was also given *286 to the jury showing the quantity of the wheat and the price per bushel, sustaining the amount of the judgment demanded, and of the verdict, by the jury, and that the amount remained unpaid. While a good deal of testimony was offered to controvert the testimony thus adduced by the plaintiff, Brakefeld, yet, upon submission to the jury, a verdict was rendered in his behalf for the amount claimed, and this verdict, having been based upon evidence which reasonably tended to support it, it will not be disturbed here. (Bank v. Earle, 2 Okla., 617, 39 Pac. 391.)

The judgment of the court below will therefore be affirmed:

Burford, O. J.: having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

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

Opinion of the court by

McAtee, J.:

Some immaterial matters, entitled, “Suggestion- of Amendments,” and “Supplemental Bill of Particulars and Plea of Estoppel,” are admitted to have been included in tbe record after tbe rendition of judgment, and without leave of court. They are no part of tbe case, and are not considered bere.

Tbe grounds upon which tbe motion for a new trial was made were (1) that tbe verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to it; (2) was contrary to law; and (3) for errors of law occurring at tbe trial. Tbe only proposition argued in tbe brief of plaintiffs in error was that tbe verdict was not sustained by tbe evidence.

Tbbe evidence tended to show that tbe wheat was seized by the sheriff of Canadian county under an execution issued upon a void judgment which bad been rendered by a justice of tbe peace of that county, in which action Brakefield was defendant, and that the property was sold thereunder as tbe property of Brakefield. Evidence was given to tbe jury to show that tbe wheat was raised upon tbe farm of Brakefield, where be lived in January, 1894; that tbe work was done by bis son and a hired man; that it was bis own property, and was sold against bis protest at tbe time. Evidence was also given *286 to the jury showing the quantity of the wheat and the price per bushel, sustaining the amount of the judgment demanded, and of the verdict, by the jury, and that the amount remained unpaid. While a good deal of testimony was offered to controvert the testimony thus adduced by the plaintiff, Brakefeld, yet, upon submission to the jury, a verdict was rendered in his behalf for the amount claimed, and this verdict, having been based upon evidence which reasonably tended to support it, it will not be disturbed here. (Bank v. Earle, 2 Okla., 617, 39 Pac. 391.)

The judgment of the court below will therefore be affirmed:

Burford, O. J.: having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1899 OK 53, 57 P. 166, 8 Okla. 284, 1899 Okla. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucas-v-brakefield-okla-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack