Nobles v. Crockett, 37701

• Decision Date: 24 December 1957
• Docket Number: No. 37701,37701
• Citation: 319 P.2d 1007
• Parties: Hansel J. NOBLES, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nadine CROCKETT and David Crockett, Defendants in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 1007

319 P.2d 1007

1957 OK 330

Hansel J. NOBLES, Plaintiff in Error, v. Nadine CROCKETT and David Crockett, Defendants in Error.

No. 37701.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 24, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where the record discloses that the issues supported by competent evidence were submitted to the jury upon instructions applicable to theories advanced by the litigants and which adequately submitted the law of the case, the verdict of the jury should not be vacated upon a motion for a new trial, unless from an examination of the entire record it reasonably appears that the complaining party was not afforded a fair or impartial trial, or that it affirmatively appears that the trial court committed errors of law during the conduct of the proceedings.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; Dale Briggs, Judge.

From an order sustaining plaintiff's motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded with directions.

T. Austin Gavin, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Vernon A. Brown, Tulsa, for defendants in error.

CORN, Vice Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by Hansel J. Nobles, defendant in the lower court from an order of the trial court sustaining a motion for a new trial.

The facts are Nadine Crockett and David Crockett purchased an automobile from Hansel J. Nobles and made a down payment of $200 and later returned the car to Nobles and brought this action in the Justice of the Peace Court for the return of the $200 down payment. An appeal was taken to the Court of Common Pleas, and there tried de novo to a jury.

This appeal is by petition in error, therefore we do not know what the evidence was, but assume from the instructions of the court to the jury, which was not excepted to by either party, that there was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether the defendant agreed to return the $200 down payment on the automobile to the plaintiffs when they returned it to him or that it was agreed only to cancel the unpaid purchase price. The court's instruction No. 3 is as follows:

'You are instructed that if you find the plaintiffs have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff and defendant agreed to rescind or cancel the sale and restore to the other what had been received by the sale, and that plaintiff restored to the defendant the automobile, and that the defendant failed and refused to restore the proceeds received by him for the sale then your verdict must be for the plaintiff for the sum of $200.00. However, if you fail to find that plaintiff had so proved by preponderance of the evidence, or if you find that the plaintiff returned the automobile to the defendant upon his agreement to cancel the unpaid purchase price, and that there was no agreement between the parties to rescind the sale from its inception and for the defendant to restore what had been received by him thereunder, then your verdict must be for the defendant.'

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $100. The court then told the jury that such verdict was not permissible, and returned it for further deliberation, and later it returned a verdict for the defendant. A motion for new trial was filed by plaintiffs and upon consideration by the court was sustained.

The defendant contends that the action of the trial court in sustaining...