TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

First Nat. Bank of Checotah v. Lewis

First Nat. Bank of Checotah v. Lewis, 1916 OK 948, 161 P. 175
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 14, 1916
Docket
No. 8028
Judges
Burford
Citations
161 P. 1751916 OK 94861 Okla. 2471916 Okla. LEXIS 871
Disposition
Affirmed.
Syllabus
Appeal and Error — Review—Questions of Fact — Verdict. In a ease at law, this court will not set aside the verdict of a jury upon the weight of the evidence; there being some evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. (Syllabus by Burford, O.) ■
Summary
Error from District Court, McIntosh County ; T. P. Olay, Assigned Judge. Action in conversion by Oscar Lewis, as guardian of Frank T. Lewis, against the First National Bank of Checotah. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court — Burford

Opinion by BURFORD, C.

The sole question raised in the brief of plaintiff in error is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict rendered herein. The ease turned upon the question of whether the bank had notice prior to taking a certain mortgage that the property alleged to be converted belonged to the minor, Frank T. Lewis. Upon this question the guardian was positive that there was such notice, the president of the bank was equally positive- that there was not. This was the only evidence upon that point. There were some circumstances proven tending to impeach the guardian’s veracity and good faith. The jury, however, believed him and the trial judge, whose duty it was to set aside the verdict, unless, after weighing the evidence, he believed the verdict to be right under the evidence and the law, sustained the verdict, rendered judgment upon it, and refused a new trial. It is axiomatic in this jurisdic tion that in a suit at law this court will not. set aside the verdict of a jury upon the weight of the evidence, there being some evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict. After an examination of the record, as well as counsel’s brief, we are unable to say that there is no such evidence in this cause.

Judgment 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.

1917: 11919: 11921: 11924: 119172026peak 1917 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Pruitt1917 OK 354, 170 P. 1143
  2. Spencer v. Holt1921 OK 300, 200 P. 187
  3. Parker-Gordon Cigar Co. v. Wood & Co.1924 OK 338, 224 P. 301
  4. Carden v. Humble1919 OK 112, 184 P. 104

Most recent

  1. Parker-Gordon Cigar Co. v. Wood & Co.1924 OK 338, 224 P. 301
  2. Spencer v. Holt1921 OK 300, 200 P. 187
  3. Carden v. Humble1919 OK 112, 184 P. 104
  4. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Pruitt1917 OK 354, 170 P. 1143

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