Rexroat v. Bettes Funeral Home

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Rexroat v. Bettes Funeral Home

1935 OK 367, 44 P.2d 879, 172 Okla. 261, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 434

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 2, 1935

DocketNo. 25377.

StatusPublished

This text of 1935 OK 367 (Rexroat v. Bettes Funeral Home) 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

Rexroat v. Bettes Funeral Home, 1935 OK 367, 44 P.2d 879, 172 Okla. 261, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 434 (Okla. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Bettes Funeral Home, sued Mary Wilma Rexroat, adminis-tratrix of the estate of U. T. Rexroat, deceased, L. Hodgson, Opal Delana Meyers, and Ruby Rexroat for $750, alleged to be due for furnishing a casket and other burial supplies, and for services rendered in the preparation and burial of the body of U. T. Rexroat.

The case was dismissed as to all defendants except the administratrix. Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount sued for.

*262 The only question presented is whether or not, considering the station in life of the decedent and the value of his estate, the verdict is so excessive this court should as a matter of law set it aside. The value of the estate was $1,399.

There is no contention that the supplies furnished and services rendered were not worth $750, hut it is contended that the amount of this bill, considering the estate left, is unreasonable. The defendant was not present at the time of the death of her husband and had not been for some time prior thereto. The death occurred about 2 o’clock a. m., and she arrived in the afternoon of the same day. The funeral arrangements had then been made by children by a former marriage, assisted by friends. The regular price of the casket was $1,000' and of the vault $250. It was thought this was more than should be paid, and a price of $750 was made for the casket and vault and all burial services. Evidence was introduced as to the social standing and station in life of the decedent. The defendant testified :

“Q. You thought the burial supplies provided appropriate to the occasion and to his standing in the community? A. Yes, it was just plain nice.”

The question as to whether the bill was unreasonable and excessive was one for the jury -to decide. The case was submitted to them under instructions to which there were no exceptions.

In a law action, where there is any evidence which reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury, and such verdict has received the approval of the trial court, it will not be disturbed on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court acknowledges the aid of Attorneys O. E. Swan, L. W. Randolph, and Vilas V. Vernor in the preparation of this ' opinion. These attorneys constituted an advisory committee selected by the State Bar, appointed by the Judicial Council, and approved by the Supreme Court. After the analysis of law and facts was prepared by Mr. Swan and approved by Mr. Randolph and Mr. Vernor, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this court for examination and report to the court. Thereafter, upon consideration, this opinion was adopted.

McNEILL, O. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and BAYLESS, WELCH, and CORN, J.T., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Bettes Funeral Home, sued Mary Wilma Rexroat, adminis-tratrix of the estate of U. T. Rexroat, deceased, L. Hodgson, Opal Delana Meyers, and Ruby Rexroat for $750, alleged to be due for furnishing a casket and other burial supplies, and for services rendered in the preparation and burial of the body of U. T. Rexroat.

The case was dismissed as to all defendants except the administratrix. Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the amount sued for.

*262 The only question presented is whether or not, considering the station in life of the decedent and the value of his estate, the verdict is so excessive this court should as a matter of law set it aside. The value of the estate was $1,399.

There is no contention that the supplies furnished and services rendered were not worth $750, hut it is contended that the amount of this bill, considering the estate left, is unreasonable. The defendant was not present at the time of the death of her husband and had not been for some time prior thereto. The death occurred about 2 o’clock a. m., and she arrived in the afternoon of the same day. The funeral arrangements had then been made by children by a former marriage, assisted by friends. The regular price of the casket was $1,000' and of the vault $250. It was thought this was more than should be paid, and a price of $750 was made for the casket and vault and all burial services. Evidence was introduced as to the social standing and station in life of the decedent. The defendant testified :

“Q. You thought the burial supplies provided appropriate to the occasion and to his standing in the community? A. Yes, it was just plain nice.”

The question as to whether the bill was unreasonable and excessive was one for the jury -to decide. The case was submitted to them under instructions to which there were no exceptions.

In a law action, where there is any evidence which reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury, and such verdict has received the approval of the trial court, it will not be disturbed on appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court acknowledges the aid of Attorneys O. E. Swan, L. W. Randolph, and Vilas V. Vernor in the preparation of this ' opinion. These attorneys constituted an advisory committee selected by the State Bar, appointed by the Judicial Council, and approved by the Supreme Court. After the analysis of law and facts was prepared by Mr. Swan and approved by Mr. Randolph and Mr. Vernor, the cause was assigned to a Justice of this court for examination and report to the court. Thereafter, upon consideration, this opinion was adopted.

McNEILL, O. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and BAYLESS, WELCH, and CORN, J.T., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1935 OK 367, 44 P.2d 879, 172 Okla. 261, 1935 Okla. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rexroat-v-bettes-funeral-home-okla-1935.