TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Harrison v. Corry Pharmacy

HARRISON v. CORRY PHARMACY Et Al.

Harrison v. Corry Pharmacy, 1920 OK 159, 188 P. 1040
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 6, 1920
Docket
No. 9621
Judges
Rainey, Owen, Kane, Johnson, Bailey
Citations
188 P. 10401920 OK 15978 Okla. 1271920 Okla. LEXIS 325
Disposition
Reversed, with directions.
Cited by 19
Syllabus
(Syllabus by the Court.) 1. Jury — Right to Jury Trial — Action to Recover Money. Under section 4993, Rev. Laws 1910, an action for the recovery of money is triable to a jury. 2. Trial — Directing Verdict — Evidence. The question presented to a trial court on a motion to direct a verdict is whether, admitting the truth of all the evidence that has been given in 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. 3. Trial — Province of Jury — Weight and Credibility of Evidence. In an action at law the credibility of a witness and the weight and value to bo given his testimony is a question for the jury.
Summary
Error from District Court, Garfield County; J. C. Robberts, Judge, Action by C. W. Harrison against the Corry Pharmacy and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff 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 — Rainey

RAINEY, J.

This was an action instituted by one C. W. Harrison to recover from the Corry Pharmacy and others on a promissory note.

The case is very similar to cause No. 9620, Fred L. Stevens v. Oklahoma Automobile Company et al., this day decided (ante, p. 126), and the cases are briefed on the same theory. The decision, therefore, in cause No. 9620 is decisive of the propositions herein involved.

The cause is therefore reversed, with directions to the trial court to grant a new trial. 1 OWEN, C. J., and KANE, JOHNSON, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 19 cases

View all citing references →
1922: 21923: 41924: 21926: 11928: 11929: 11930: 11931: 21933: 11943: 21954: 11964: 119222026peak 1923 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ohio Oil Co. v. Sharp135 F.2d 303 (10th Cir. 1943)
  2. Arnold v. City of Spartanburg23 S.E.2d 735 (S.C. 1943)
  3. Teuscher v. Gragg1929 OK 186, 276 P. 753
  4. Ginner & Miller Publishing Co. v. N. S. Sherman MacHine & Iron Works1923 OK 954, 220 P. 650
  5. Pluto Oil & Gas Co. v. Miller1923 OK 61, 219 P. 303
  6. Florence Springer v. G. L. Townsend336 F.2d 397 (10th Cir. 1964)

Most recent

  1. Florence Springer v. G. L. Townsend336 F.2d 397 (10th Cir. 1964)
  2. Scott v. Emanuel215 F.2d 411 (10th Cir. 1954)
  3. Ohio Oil Co. v. Sharp135 F.2d 303 (10th Cir. 1943)
  4. Arnold v. City of Spartanburg23 S.E.2d 735 (S.C. 1943)
  5. McKoy v. Keel1933 OK 9, 18 P.2d 277
  6. Wynn v. Fugate1931 OK 317, 299 P. 890

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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