Gen. Pipe & Supply Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 09 September 1930
• Docket Number: Case Number: 19376
• Citation: 144 Okla. 236,291 P. 104,1930 OK 365
• Parties: GENERAL PIPE & SUPPLY CO. v. BROWN, Adm'r.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1930 OK 365

291 P. 104

144 Okla. 236

GENERAL PIPE & SUPPLY CO. v. BROWN, Adm'r.

Case Number: 19376

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 9, 1930

Syllabus

¶0 Trial--Improper Argument Rendered Harmless by Admonishing Jury.

Where counsel for the prevailing party made an improper remark in his argument to the jury, whereupon plaintiff objected and the court sustained the objection and directed the attorney to stay within the record, and instructed the jury not to consider the remark of the attorney, but to be guided solely by the evidence and instructions of the court, and there was no repetition of the improper remark, and no further request by plaintiff, held, that the record discloses no reversible error, as the remark shown in this opinion was not of sufficient gravity to require the court of its own motion to take further action.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Error from Common Pleas Court, Tulsa County; S. M. Rutherford, Judge.

Action by General Pipe & Supply Company, against J. A. Brown, administrator of the estate of Henry Hornecker, deceased.Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

N. E. McNeill, for plaintiff in error.

Benjamin C. Connor and Floyd E. Staley, for defendant in error.

REID, C.

¶1The plaintiff, General Pipe & Supply Company, a corporation, brought this suit against the defendant, J.

¶2A. Brown, as administrator of the estate of Henry Hornecker, to recover for certain oil well casing alleged to have been sold Hornecker by plaintiff.

¶3 The only issue on the trial was whether Hornecker ever actually bought the casing as claimed by plaintiff.One Rubin was interested in and was the general manager of the plaintiff corporation, and gave material testimony for the plaintiff.The evidence was conflicting.There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

¶4The plaintiff contends that the case must be reversed for the reason that defendant's counsel in his argument to the jury appealed to race prejudice, which had the inevitable result of depriving plaintiff of a fair and impartial trial before the jury.The record relating to this question appears in the judgment as follows:

"It was agreed in open court by plaintiff and defendant upon the motion for new trial, that following proceedings were had: That Ben C. Connor, attorney for defendant, referred to Max Rubin, the general manager of the plaintiff company, as a 'Jew junk dealer'; that at the time of making said argument to the jury, N. E. McNeill, attorney for the plaintiff, objected to the statements of counsel, and requested the court to admonish the jury not to consider the

...