Adams v. Porter

• Decision Date: 06 June 1916
• Docket Number: 6803.
• Citation: 158 P. 899,58 Okla. 225,1916 OK 601
• Parties: ADAMS ET AL. v. PORTER ET AL.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

158 P. 899

58 Okla. 225, 1916 OK 601

ADAMS ET AL. v. PORTER ET AL.

No. 6803.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

June 6, 1916

Rehearing Denied July 19, 1916.

Syllabus by the Court.

In cases where fraud is alleged in the procuring of the execution of written instruments or deeds, the proof must sustain the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and repel all opposing presumptions. It should be of such weight and cogency as to satisfactorily establish the wrongful conduct charged; honesty and fair dealing as a rule being presumed.

Evidence examined, and held not sufficient to sustain the allegations of the petition.

Error from District Court, Atoka County; Robert M. Rainey, Judge.

Action by Angeline Porter and another against F. E. Adams and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

J. G Ralls, of Atoka, for plaintiffs in error.

J. H Gernert and Paul Pinson, both of Atoka, for defendants in error.

KANE C.J.

As stated by the trial court in his instructions to the jury:

"This is a case wherein the plaintiffs, Angeline Porter and Turner Porter, sue the defendants, F. E. Adams and T. F Horn, for the possession of a strip of land 50 feet wide and for damages in the sum of $200 for the withholding of the said land from the plaintiff."

The plaintiff, in substance, claims that on the 16th day of November, 1908, they sold to the defendants certain land for $366, and that the defendants included in the description of the said land, without the consent of the plaintiffs, the strip of land sued for in this suit. The plaintiffs claim that the inclusion of the strip of land was fraudulently done by the defendant, and that the defendants represented to them that the deed described other land and did not include the land sued for in this case.

The answer of the defendants was a general denial. Upon trial to a jury there was a general verdict for the plaintiffs which omitting formal parts, reads as follows:

"We, the jury impaneled and sworn in the above-entitled case, do upon our oath find for the plaintiffs, Angeline Porter and Turner Porter, and for the possession of the land described in plaintiffs' petition, and for $______ no damages."

Thereafter a motion for new trial was filed and was overruled, and a judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs upon the verdict rendered by the jury; whereupon, the losing parties instituted this proceeding in error for the purpose of reviewing the action of the trial court.

The errors complained of are: (1) Error of the court in refusing to sustain a demurrer to the evidence; (2) error of the court in giving certain instructions, and in refusing to give certain other instructions which were requested by the defendants. We have quoted largely from the statement of the trial court in submitting the cause to the jury for the purpose of showing that the action below was tried as an action at law, and that the only question of fact involved in the cause was whether defendants procured the deed which purported to convey to them the land in controversy by fraudulent representations. As the action was treated by the court below and the parties as an action at law, it will be considered in this court upon that basis. Fraud must be shown and proven at law. In equity it suffices to show facts and circumstances from...