TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McQueen Gin Co. v. Crenshaw

McQUEEN GIN CO. v. CRENSHAW Et Al.

McQueen Gin Co. v. Crenshaw, 1926 OK 801, 252 P. 37
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 5, 1926
Docket
No. 17238
Judges
Stephenson
Citations
252 P. 371926 OK 801123 Okla. 1861926 Okla. LEXIS 524

Opinion of the Court — Stephenson

Opinion by STEPHENSON, C.

H. N. Crenshaw et al.' commenced their action against the McQueen Gin Company to recover debt on contract for drilling a water well for the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that they agreed with the defendant in an oral contract to drill a water well for the gin company, for $1 per foot for the first 10O feet, and $1-50 per foot for additional footage. The plaintiffs alleged that they agreed to drill a straight hole to water, and continue to drill to such depth as they were directed to do by the defendant. The defendant alleged in its answer that the oral contract between the parties was that they would drill a well and procure an adequate supply of water to meet the needs of the gin company for the compensation stated by the plaintiffs. There was a sharp conflict between the evidence of the parties as to the terms of the contract. Each offered evidence in support of their contention in the trial of the ■cause. The jury returned its verdict for the plaintiffs. A judgment of the court based upon the verdict of a jury in a law action will not be reversed on appeal, if there is any competent evidence which reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury. Young v. Eaton, 82 Okla. 166 , 198 Pac. 857 .

There is sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff.

The judgment is 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 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Young v. Eaton, 1921 OK 226, 198 P. 857 30

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list