Sisler v. Smith

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Sisler v. Smith

267 P.2d 1081

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMarch 23, 1954

Docket35867

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 267 P.2d 1081 (Sisler v. Smith) 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

Sisler v. Smith, 267 P.2d 1081 (Okla. 1954).

Pincite

Opinions

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

. This appeal is prosecuted to reverse a jury’s verdict and judgment based thereon for $616 entered against Dr. Wade Sisler in the -Court of Common ■ Pleas of Tulsa County. It was alleged, among other things, that plaintiff was a feeble old man, -who collapsed, or fell, on a concrete street in Tulsa and was brought to Dr. Sisler’s hospital where he stayed for 19 days, and for which services Dr. Sisler charged him $616,. which amount, was. allegedly removed from plaintiff’s person without his consent, or, permission, and-that this amounted to a conversion of his money. The defendant denied the conversion.

Defendant complains of. error of the trial court in overruling his motion for directed verdict, and that the judgment is against the law and the evidence.

The rule to be applied herein is that a mere illegal taking or wrongful assuming of right to personal property -constitutes conversion and that no further step is necessary to perfect the right of action therefor, First National Bank v. Melton & Homes, 156 Okl. 63, 9 P.2d 703; and the fact that owner was indebted to wrongdoer is no defense, Caldwell v. Carpenter, 109 Okl. 63, 234 P. 767.

The record discloses that plaintiff was a feeble old.veteran-of the Spanish [1082]*1082American .War who was afflicted with a disability known as Parkinson’s Syndrome or Palsy, the aftermath of sleeping- sickness. Plaintiff’s collapse and hospitalization, his having approximately $640 on his person when admitted as a patient, and that $616 thereof was appropriated by Dr. Sisler’s hospital for bills accrued is undisputed. But it is claimed by defendant that the plaintiff consented to the appropriation. Upon this issue the evidence was in conflict but we think the evidence ample to sustain the verdict and judgment, thus invoking the often repeated rule that where there is any evidence, though conflicting, reasonably tending to sustain a jury’s verdict and court’s judgment based thereon, such, judgment will be affirmed on appeal.

Finding no substantial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

HALLEY, C. J., and CORN, DAVISON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur. ARNOLD arid WILLIAMS, JJ., dissent.

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

JOHNSON, Vice Chief Justice.

. This appeal is prosecuted to reverse a jury’s verdict and judgment based thereon for $616 entered against Dr. Wade Sisler in the -Court of Common ■ Pleas of Tulsa County. It was alleged, among other things, that plaintiff was a feeble old man, -who collapsed, or fell, on a concrete street in Tulsa and was brought to Dr. Sisler’s hospital where he stayed for 19 days, and for which services Dr. Sisler charged him $616,. which amount, was. allegedly removed from plaintiff’s person without his consent, or, permission, and-that this amounted to a conversion of his money. The defendant denied the conversion.

Defendant complains of. error of the trial court in overruling his motion for directed verdict, and that the judgment is against the law and the evidence.

The rule to be applied herein is that a mere illegal taking or wrongful assuming of right to personal property -constitutes conversion and that no further step is necessary to perfect the right of action therefor, First National Bank v. Melton & Homes, 156 Okl. 63, 9 P.2d 703; and the fact that owner was indebted to wrongdoer is no defense, Caldwell v. Carpenter, 109 Okl. 63, 234 P. 767.

The record discloses that plaintiff was a feeble old.veteran-of the Spanish [1082]*1082American .War who was afflicted with a disability known as Parkinson’s Syndrome or Palsy, the aftermath of sleeping- sickness. Plaintiff’s collapse and hospitalization, his having approximately $640 on his person when admitted as a patient, and that $616 thereof was appropriated by Dr. Sisler’s hospital for bills accrued is undisputed. But it is claimed by defendant that the plaintiff consented to the appropriation. Upon this issue the evidence was in conflict but we think the evidence ample to sustain the verdict and judgment, thus invoking the often repeated rule that where there is any evidence, though conflicting, reasonably tending to sustain a jury’s verdict and court’s judgment based thereon, such, judgment will be affirmed on appeal.

Finding no substantial error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

HALLEY, C. J., and CORN, DAVISON, and O’NEAL, JJ., concur. ARNOLD arid WILLIAMS, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 P.2d 1081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sisler-v-smith-okla-1954.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack