Stevens v. Oklahoma Automobile Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Stevens v. Oklahoma Automobile Co.

1920 OK 155, 188 P. 1075, 78 Okla. 126, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 324

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 6, 1920

Docket9620

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1920 OK 155 (Stevens v. Oklahoma Automobile 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

Stevens v. Oklahoma Automobile Co., 1920 OK 155, 188 P. 1075, 78 Okla. 126, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 324 (Okla. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

RAINEY, J.

This was an action brought by Fred L. Stevens to recover from the Oklahoma Automobile Company on a promissory note. By answer defendants admitted the execution of the note, but alleged that they were induced to sign it and a contract executed at the same time by the fraud of the agents of the Dyon-Taylor Company, the payee in said note. At the trial defendants assumed the burden of proof, and at the conclusion of the evidence the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict. The court denied the motion, refused to submit the case to a jury, directed a verdict for the defendants, dismissed plaintiff’s action, and taxed him with the costs. Complaining of these things, plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The action is one for the recovery of money and is, therefore, a jury case. Section 4993, Rev. Daws 1910; Childs v. Cook, 68 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 274; Gill et al., Adm’rs, v. Fixico, 77 Okla. 151. In such cases the question presented to the trial court on a motion to direct a verdict is whether, admitting the truth of all the evi *127 dence mat has been given m favor of the party against whom the action is contemplated, together with such inferences and conclusions as may be reasonably drawn therefrom, there is enough competent evidence to reasonably sustain a verdict should the jury find in accordance therewith. Jones v. First State Bank of Bristow, 39 Okla. 784, 136 Pac. 737.

An examination of the record discloses that the court directed a verdict for defendants on the theory that the plaintiff did not own the note, and, therefore, was' not entitled to recover. The evidence, however, discloses that plaintiff gave positive testimony to the effect that he was the owner of the note and had purchased it for a valuable consideration before maturity in due course of business. From the remarks of the trial court, which appear in the record, it seems that he did not believe plaintiff’s testimony. This was an invasion of the province of the jury, for in actions at law the credibility of the witnesses and flic weight and value to be given their testimony is a question for the jury. 28 Cyc. 1518.

The cause is reversed and remanded for a now trial.

OWEN, C. J., a#nd KANE, JOHNSON, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

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

RAINEY, J.

This was an action brought by Fred L. Stevens to recover from the Oklahoma Automobile Company on a promissory note. By answer defendants admitted the execution of the note, but alleged that they were induced to sign it and a contract executed at the same time by the fraud of the agents of the Dyon-Taylor Company, the payee in said note. At the trial defendants assumed the burden of proof, and at the conclusion of the evidence the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict. The court denied the motion, refused to submit the case to a jury, directed a verdict for the defendants, dismissed plaintiff’s action, and taxed him with the costs. Complaining of these things, plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The action is one for the recovery of money and is, therefore, a jury case. Section 4993, Rev. Daws 1910; Childs v. Cook, 68 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 274; Gill et al., Adm’rs, v. Fixico, 77 Okla. 151. In such cases the question presented to the trial court on a motion to direct a verdict is whether, admitting the truth of all the evi *127 dence mat has been given m favor of the party against whom the action is contemplated, together with such inferences and conclusions as may be reasonably drawn therefrom, there is enough competent evidence to reasonably sustain a verdict should the jury find in accordance therewith. Jones v. First State Bank of Bristow, 39 Okla. 784, 136 Pac. 737.

An examination of the record discloses that the court directed a verdict for defendants on the theory that the plaintiff did not own the note, and, therefore, was' not entitled to recover. The evidence, however, discloses that plaintiff gave positive testimony to the effect that he was the owner of the note and had purchased it for a valuable consideration before maturity in due course of business. From the remarks of the trial court, which appear in the record, it seems that he did not believe plaintiff’s testimony. This was an invasion of the province of the jury, for in actions at law the credibility of the witnesses and flic weight and value to be given their testimony is a question for the jury. 28 Cyc. 1518.

The cause is reversed and remanded for a now trial.

OWEN, C. J., a#nd KANE, JOHNSON, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1920 OK 155, 188 P. 1075, 78 Okla. 126, 1920 Okla. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-oklahoma-automobile-co-okla-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack