TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McNeal v. Nagle Et Ux.

McNeal v. Nagle Et Ux., 1914 OK 147, 139 P. 958
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 24, 1914
Docket
No. 3342
Judges
Turner
Citations
139 P. 9581914 OK 14740 Okla. 5211914 Okla. LEXIS 76
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
APPEAL AND ERROR — Record — Review — Sufficiency of Evidence. Where the evidence reasonably tends to support the judgment the same will be affirmed. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Summary
Error from County Court, Kingfisher County; John M. Graham, Judge. Action by Lizzie B. McNeal against P. S. Nagle and Angie Nagle, his wife. 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 — Turner

TURNER, J.

On August 6,1906, the plaintiff in error, Lizzie B. McNeal, as payee, sued defendants in.error, P. S. Nagle and Angie Nagle, his wife, in the probate court of Kingfisher county, as makers, on a promissory note, for $145, dated January 21, 1905, payable in one year thereafter. By unverified answer *522 defendants pleaded a general denial and want of consideration. There was trial to the court and judgment for defendants, in effect sustaining their plea, and plaintiff brings the case here.

The judgment is neither contrary to law nor to the evidence, . as assigned. There were but two witnesses. Nagle, to support his plea, testified that while United States marshal of that district it was his custom to issue marshal’s certificates to his deputies for services rendered; that these certificates evidenced an indebtedness subject to approval by the Department of Justice; that before that time numbers of them were sold; that one Severns, and a brother of plaintiff, bought a lot of them with funds furnished by the brother, and, thereafter, and while they were subject to approval, forced him to take them up by the execution of a note for some $500; that some of the certificates were after-wards paid and the note correspondingly reduced; that those remaining unpaid represented the amount for which the note sued on was given. To meet this the brother of plaintiff swore positively the other way, but as the court found for defendants, and there is evidence reasonably tending to support the judgment, the same is affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1915: 11924: 11925: 219152026peak 1925 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Bruner's Guardianship1925 OK 256, 238 P. 448
  2. Bailey v. Evans1924 OK 689, 229 P. 221
  3. Chaffee v. Shartel1915 OK 234, 148 P. 686
  4. Smith v. Popkin111 Okla. 93 (1925)

Most recent

  1. In re Bruner's Guardianship1925 OK 256, 238 P. 448
  2. Smith v. Popkin111 Okla. 93 (1925)
  3. Bailey v. Evans1924 OK 689, 229 P. 221
  4. Chaffee v. Shartel1915 OK 234, 148 P. 686

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