Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Adams Engineering & Blueprinting Co.
OKLAHOMA CITY LAND & DEVELOPMENT CO. Et Al. v. ADAMS ENGINEERING & BLUEPRINTING CO.
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by RITTENHOUSE; C.
This is an action to recover a balance of $136.50 due upon an oral contract to survey a part of the S. W. % of section 11, township 12 N., range 3 E. .1. M. Issues were joined and the cause tried to a jury, resulting in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
It is argued that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Upon an examination of the record we find that H. C. Adams testified to the terms of the oral contract; that the work was performed under such contract by surveying the tract of land and subdividing the same into lots, blocks, streets, and alleys; that it required the labor of four men for the space of 18 days to perform the work; and that certain material was furnished as provided by the terms of the contract. The defense was that the work performed under the contract was inaccurate and necessitated an additional survey, and for that reason defendants were not liable. The jury passed upon the question of the accul-acy of the survey, which was the only defense offered, and, as there was competent evidence reasonably tending to support their finding, the judgment will not be disturbed by this court.
McKemie v. Albright, 44 Okla. 405 , 144 Pac. 1027 .
*765 The next question complained of is the giving and refusal of instructions. No reason is given as to why the refusal of the instructions requested was prejudicial to the defendant. Any objection, therefore, to the refusal of such instructions will be deemed waived. The defendant complains of instruction No. 9 on the ground that it presumes that some officer or representative of the defendant company directed the method of surveying the property, which presumption, it is claimed, was not borne out by the evidence. We have examined the record, and find that the evidence did not fully warrant so comprehensive an instruction, but, in view of all the facts in this case, it does not appear that the error has probably resulted in a miscarriage of justice, or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right.
Producers’ Oil Co. v. Eaton, 44 Okla. 55 , 143 Pac. 9 ;
City of Guthrie v. Snyder, 43 Okla. 334 , 143 Pac. 8 .
The cause should therefore be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.