Keaton v. Branch
| Decision Date | 14 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 14003 |
| Citation | 231 P. 289,1924 OK 919,104 Okla. 287 |
| Parties | KEATON et al. v. BRANCH et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Cost--Attorney Fees--Validity of Statute--Lien Foreclosure.
Section 7482, Comp. Stat. 1921, allowing a reasonable attorney fee to the prevailing party in lien foreclosure cases, is constitutional and valid.
2. Appeal and Error--Questions of Fact--Conclusiveness of Findings.
Where a jury is waived, and the cause tried to the court without a jury, and the findings and judgment of the trial court are amply supported by the weight of the evidence adduced at the trial, the appellate court is not at liberty to disregard the findings and judgment of the trial court.
3. Same--Judgment Sustained.
Record examined; and held, that the judgment of the trial court is amply supported by the evidence, and should be affirmed.
H. Grady Ross and M. S. Singleton, for plaintiffs in error.
J. P. Speer, for defendants in error.
¶1 The plaintiffs in error were the defendants below, and the defendants in error were the plaintiffs. They will be referred to herein as plaintiffs and defendants as they appeared in the trial court. The plaintiffs commenced this action in the district court of Stephens county, on December 2, 1921. They seek judgment in the sum of $ 650, with interest at six per cent. per annum from October 26, 1921, and foreclosure of mechanics' and materialmen's lien upon certain property described in the petition. They allege that they made a contract with the defendants to furnish material and erect a derrick upon certain property on which the defendants own an oil and gas lease, for use in drilling an oil and gas test, the contract price being the sum claimed; that they furnished the material and erected the derrick, and in due course filed the statutory lien claim; that defendants fail and refuse payment, and this suit resulted. They ask judgment for the contract price, and $ 100 attorney fees, and for foreclosure of their lien. The defendants answered admitting that they are the owners of an oil and gas lease on the southeast quarter (S. E. 1/4) of the southeast quarter (S. E. 1/4) of section twenty-seven (27), township one (1) south, range eight (8) west, in Stephens county, the property on which the derrick was erected. They deny that they entered into a contract with the plaintiffs to furnish material and build a derrick, but claim the contract was made with Slayton & Branch. They further allege that the derrick was not built according to specifications, and for that reason was demolished and destroyed by the wind, and deny the allegations of the petition generally. The plaintiffs replied by general denial. The case was called for trial on the 9th of May, 1922, and a jury having been waived, the cause was tried to the court, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiffs for the amount sued for, and $ 100 attorneys fees, and for foreclosure of the lien. The defendants prosecute appeal. They present in their brief the proposition that the judgment is not supported by the evidence, and is contrary to the law. The first thing of which they complain is the judgment for attorney fees in the sum of $ 100, and the complaint made is that section 7482, Comp. Stat. 1921, authorizing allowance of an attorney fee in lien foreclosure cases, is unconstitutional and void. This section of our statutes was section 3877, Rev. Laws 1910, and was before the court for consideration in Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks, 67 Okla. 228, 170 P. 253, Scott v. Iman, 74 Okla. 13, 176 P. 81, Neves v. Mills, 74 Okla. 7, 176 P. 509, and in Holiday Oil Co. et al. v. Smith & Seidler, 100 Okla. 172, 228 P. 775. In all these cases the validity of the section was upheld. This section provides for the allowance of a reasonable attorney fee to the prevailing party in lien foreclosure cases. It is contended that the section referred to contravenes section 1, art. 2, and section 6, art. 2 of the Constitution of the state of Oklahoma. Such contention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William M. Graham Oil & Gas Co. v. Oil Well Supply Co.
...adduced at the trial, the appellate court is not at liberty to disregard the findings and judgment of the trial court." Keaton v. Branch, 104 Okla. 287, 231 P. 289. ¶39 We therefore cannot say that the court erred in adjudging and decreeing the several accounts to be liens upon the respecti......
-
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. North American Van Lines
...and Swan-Sigler, Inc. v. Black, 414 P.2d 300 (Okla.1966). In Swan-Sigler, we interpreted "prevailing party" as used in Keaton v. Branch, 104 Okla. 287, 231 P. 289 (1924), pursuant to 42 O.S. § 176, as meaning the party for whom judgment is rendered, meaning in that instance a judgment upon ......
-
Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. North American Van Lines.
...and Swan-Sigler, Inc. v. Black, 414 P.2d 300 (Okla.1966). In Swan-Sigler, we interpreted "prevailing party" as used in Keaton v. Branch, 104 Okla. 287, 231 P. 289 (1924), pursuant to 42 O.S. § 176, as meaning the party for whom judgment is rendered, meaning in that instance a judgment upon ......
-
Baker v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank
...Hutchinson Lbr. Co. v. Scrivener et al., 91 Okla. 293, 217 P. 854. The last case on this question by our court is Keaton et al. v. Branch et al., 104 Okla. 287, 231 P. 289. ¶11 The second assignment of error urged by defendant is as follows:"The learned trial court erred in not holding that......