Oaks v. Samples

Oaks v. Samples, 1916 OK 534, 157 P. 739

Court: Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided: May 9, 1916
Docket: No. 7324
Judges: Mathews
Citations: 157 P. 7391916 OK 53457 Okla. 6601916 Okla. LEXIS 566
Disposition: Affirmed.

Syllabus

1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Presenting- Questions in Trial Court— Sufficiency of Evidence — Motion for Direction of Verdict. In the absence of a motion for a directed verdict, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is not presented to this court on appeal. 2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Questions of Fact. If there is .any evidence, including every reasonable inference the jury could have drawn from the same, reasonably tending to support the verdict, this court will not reverse a case for insufficient evidence. ' (Syllabus by Mathews, C.)

Summary

Error from District Court, Delaware County; John H. Pitchford, Judge. Action by H. S. Samples against J. W. Oaks. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant 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 — Mathews

Opinion by MATHEWS, C.

This was an. action for a balance claimed to be due upon a real estate transaction. Judgment was for defendant in error. The only question presented by the plaintiff in error is that the verdict is. not sustained by the evidence.

It appears from the record that the plaintiff in error in no way challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to-support a verdict in favor of defendant in error until after the verdict was rendered. It came too late then to save the point now presented. It has been frequently and uniformly held by this court that, if the plaintiff in error does not, in some authorized Way, challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict against him duringthe trial and permits the case to go to the jury unchallenged, then nothing is saved to present to this court.

Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Reed, 35 Okla. 334 , 130 Pac. 157 ;

Reed v. Scott, 50 Okla. 757 , 151 Pac. 484 ;

Haizlip v. Whitfield, ante, p. 42, 155 Pac. 863 .

We recommend that the judgment 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 21 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts21

Relies on it most ⓘ

McDonald, Adm'r v. Strawn1920 OK 223, 190 P. 558
Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks1917 OK 573, 170 P. 253
Norman v. Lambert1917 OK 227, 167 P. 213
Barnes v. Universal Tire Protector Co.1917 OK 224, 165 P. 176
Bank of Commerce of Sulphur v. Webster1918 OK 263, 172 P. 943
Pittsburg County Ry. Co. v. Hasty1924 OK 990, 233 P. 218

Most recent

Sheppard v. Gaddy1950 OK 60, 215 P.2d 827
Martin v. National Bank of Claremore1938 OK 58, 77 P.2d 40
Nolan v. Mathis1928 OK 628, 272 P. 874
Hilsmeyer v. Berry269 P. 1078 (Okla. 1928)
Oklahoma State Bank of OcheLata v. Ward1927 OK 317, 259 P. 644
Pittsburg County Ry. Co. v. Hasty1924 OK 990, 233 P. 218

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 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Muskogee Elec. Traction Co. v. Reed, 1913 OK 73, 130 P. 157	57
	Reed v. Scott, 151 P. 484 (Okla. 1915)	56
	Haizlip v. Whitfield, 1916 OK 233, 155 P. 863	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list