Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil v. the Bank of Stroud
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
¿Error from the District Qourt of Lincoln County; before John H. Burford, Trial Judge. Action by tbe Bank of Strond against tbe Southwestern ^Cotton Seed Oil Company and J. S. Bichardson, to recover tbe sum of $1,269.57, on open account. Verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff and against tbe Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil •Company, for $500.00.
1Opinion of the Court
’Opinion of tbe court by
Pancoast, J.:
There is but one assignment of error in -this ease, that is, that there was no evidence to sustain tbe verdict returned. It is admitted that there was evidence to •support a verdict for $1,269.57, but it is contended that there was no evidence to support a verdict for $500. In other words, the complaint is that the verdict is too small, and should have been for the entire amount, if for anything.
Of the several grounds which may be assigned in a motion for a new trial, we may notice:
“Fifth. Error in the assessment of the amount of recov ery, whether too…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Menten v. ShutteeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1902
- Reynolds v. Iowa & Nebraska InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1890
- Hyatt v. MattinglyIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Wachsmuth v. Orient InsuranceNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
- Davis v. MontgomeryIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Lookabaugh v. EppersonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Tuck v. BullerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1957
- De Vitt v. City of El RenoSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- O'Neil v. JamesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Red River Construction Co. v. City of NormanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.