Bristow v. Leaird
| Decision Date | 22 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 12708 |
| Citation | 1924 OK 64,98 Okla. 55,223 P. 633 |
| Parties | BRISTOW v. LEAIRD. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Appeal and Error -- Motion to Direct Verdict--Effect.
Where the evidence is conflicting, and the court is asked to direct a verdict, the evidence favorable to the moving party must be eliminated from consideration and wholly disregarded, leaving for consideration only that evidence favorable to the party against whom the motion is leveled.
2. Sufficiency of Evidence.
Record examined, and held, there was evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.
Error from District Court, Coal County; J. H. Linebaugh, Judge.
Action by Lucretia Leaird against F. E. Bristow. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
J. E. Bristow, for plaintiff in error.
J. R. Wood, for defendant in error.
¶1 The only question for consideration, as presented by the record and brief of the plaintiff in error, is whether the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. It has been held by this court that where the evidence is conflicting, and the court is asked to direct a verdict, the evidence favorable to the moving party must be eliminated from consideration and wholly disregarded, leaving for consideration only that evidence favorable to the party against whom the motion is leveled, Kelley v. Hamilton, 78 Okla. 179, 189 P. 535; Kramer v. Nichols Chandler Home Building & Brokerage Co., 93 Okla. 227, 220 P. 338.
¶2 Lucretia Leaird and F. E. Bristow entered into a written contract by the terms of which Lucretia Leaird agreed to sell to Bristow a one-ninth interest in and to all the real estate of her father, J D. langford, then deceased, for a consideration of $ 3,500, and acknowledged receipt of $ 100 payment. In addition to the $ 100 paid Bristow agreed to assume $ 1,000 indebtedness and pay the balance when the deed was executed and delivered. Mrs. Leaird and her mother delivered to Bristow all the deeds they could find or knew anything about to aid him in preparing the deed for Mrs. Leaird and her husband to execute. From these deeds and public records Bristow prepared the deed and, a little more than 30 days after the contract was signed, Mrs. Leaird and her husband went to Bristow's office for the purpose of signing the deed, and then, with Bristow, went to the bank where they signed the deed and acknowledged it before a notary public, who was also in charge of the bank. According to their testimony, the deed was then left with the bank to be delivered to Bristow upon paying the balance due. About three weeks later they learned that Bristow had gotten possession of the deed and had it recorded. Upon Bristow's refusal to pay the balance Mrs. Leaird claimed to be due her, she brought this action on the contract and...
To continue reading
Request your trial