TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bass v. the City of Atoka

BASS v. THE CITY OF ATOKA Et Al.

Bass v. the City of Atoka, 1919 OK 297, 184 P. 463
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 14, 1919
Docket
No. 9466
Judges
Owen, Kane, Johnson, McNeill, Higgins
Citations
184 P. 4631919 OK 29776 Okla. 581919 Okla. LEXIS 121
Disposition
Affirmed.
Cited by 11
Syllabus
(Syllabus by the Court.) Appeal and Error — Evidence—Sufficiency. Where the only error complained of is that the verdict of the jury and the judgment thereon are not supported by the evidence, where there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict, the same must be-sustained. Held, from an examination of the record, the evidence reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court approving same.
Summary
Error from District Court, Atoka County; J. H. Linebaugh, Judge. Action by Amos K. Bass against the City of Atoka and J. E. Davis. Judgment for defendant City of Atoka, and plaintiff, Bass, brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Owen

OWEN, C. J.

This action was begun by plaintiff in error, Bass, against the city of Atoka to recover on a claim alleged to be due from the city to J. E. Davis and by Davis assigned to Bass. The city answered denying any indebtedness to Davis. The ease was tried to a jury and verdict rendered in favor of the city. The only error presented by counsel is that the verdict of the jury and the judgment thereon are not supported by the evidence. There was a sharp conflict in the evidence, the city claiming to have paid Davis the full amount due under his contract, and Davis admitting he received the amount, but claiming a portion of the amount, by an arrangement with the mayor, was to reimburse him for expense incurred and was not applied to the credit of the city’s indebtedness to him. This issue was submitted to the jury, under proper instruction, and the evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict, such verdict and judgment thereon must be sustained. Muskogee Elec. Tract. Co. v. Rye, 38 Okla. 93 , 132 Pac. 336 .

Therefore the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

KANE, JOHNSON, McNEILL, and HIGGINS, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1921: 11922: 11923: 61925: 21928: 119212026peak 1923 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Barnes v. Winona Oil Co.1921 OK 159, 200 P. 985
  2. Firebaugh v. Gunther1925 OK 104, 233 P. 460
  3. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Pedigo1923 OK 1023, 226 P. 72
  4. Aaronson v. Peyton1925 OK 386, 236 P. 586
  5. Reed v. Fichencord1923 OK 841, 219 P. 937
  6. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hurst1928 OK 19, 263 P. 113

Most recent

  1. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Hurst1928 OK 19, 263 P. 113
  2. Aaronson v. Peyton1925 OK 386, 236 P. 586
  3. Firebaugh v. Gunther1925 OK 104, 233 P. 460
  4. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Pedigo1923 OK 1023, 226 P. 72
  5. Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Booker1923 OK 885, 219 P. 931
  6. Reed v. Fichencord1923 OK 841, 219 P. 937

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Muskogee Elec. Traction Co. v. Rye, 1913 OK 291, 132 P. 336 8

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