Johnston v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 22 April 1913
• Citation: 131 P. 1076,38 Okla. 42,1913 OK 258
• Parties: JOHNSTON ET AL. v. CHAPMAN ET AL.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

131 P. 1076

38 Okla. 42, 1913 OK 258

JOHNSTON ET AL. v. CHAPMAN ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

April 22, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the sufficiency of a petition is challenged solely by an objection to the introduction of evidence thereunder, such objection, not being favored by the courts, should generally be overruled, unless there is a total failure to allege some matters essential to the relief sought, and should seldom, if ever, be sustained when the allegations are simply incomplete, indefinite, or conclusions of law.

Evidence examined, and held sufficient to support the verdict and judgment rendered thereon.

Error from the County Court of Washington County; A. S. Dumenil Judge.

Action by A. Chapman and another against H. G. Johnston and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Veasey & Rowland and J. D. Talbott, all of Bartlesville, for plaintiffs in error.

J. R Charlton and A. F. Vandeventer, both of Bartlesville, for defendants in error.

KANE J.

This was an action upon an account stated, commenced by the defendants in error, plaintiffs below, against the plaintiffs in error, defendants below. Upon trial to a jury there was a verdict for the plaintiffs, upon which judgment was rendered to reverse which this proceeding in error was commenced.

The first assignment of error is to the effect that the court erred in overruling an objection to the introduction of any testimony, upon the ground that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. After setting out the allegation claimed to be defective counsel says: "This is merely the statement of a conclusion by the pleader." In Hogan v. Bailey, 27 Okl. 15, 110 P. 890, it was held that, "where the sufficiency of a petition is challenged solely by an objection to the introduction of evidence thereunder, such objection, not being favored by the courts, should generally be overruled, unless there is a total failure to allege some matters essential to the relief sought, and should seldom, if ever, be sustained when the allegations are simply incomplete, indefinite, or conclusions of law." To the same effect is Marshall et al. v. Homier et al., 13 Okl. 264, 74 P. 368.

The next assignment of error is to the effect that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the evidence. We have examined the record, and are of the opinion that the evidence reasonably supports...