Scruggs v. Kessinger

Decision Date21 January 1936
Docket NumberCase Number: 23303
Citation175 Okla. 510,1936 OK 68,53 P.2d 1125
PartiesSCRUGGS v. KESSINGER
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶0 1. APPEAL AND ERROR - Trial - Conclusiveness of Trial Court's Findings on Conflicting Evidence.

Where a law action is tried to the court, and there is a conflict in the evidence on the issues joined, determination of the questions of fact therein is for the trial court, and this court, on appeal, will not weigh the evidence or determine as to the credibility of the witnesses, that question being one for the trial court.

2. SAME - Action by General Insurance Agent to Recover Premiums Alleged to Be Due on Fire Policies - Judgment for Defendant Sustained.

Record examined. Judgment affirmed.

Appeal from District Court, Garfield County; J.W. Bird, Judge.

Action by Gross R. Scruggs, doing business as Gross R. Scruggs & Company, against Stanley Kessinger. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

J.F. Curran, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Otjen & Carter, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 This action was tried in the district court of Garfield county, upon an appeal from a Judgment rendered in a justice of the peace court. The action was to recover certain premiums alleged to be due for fire insurance policies of the Agricultural Insurance Company furnished to the said Stanley Kessinger, in the amount of $57.18. A jury was waived in the district court and the case was tried to the court, which rendered a judgment for the defendant.

¶2 The record discloses that the plaintiff is an individual, doing business as Gross R. Scruggs & Company, as a general fire insurance agent at Dallas, Tex., having several companies, among which is the Agricultural Insurance Company; that he has a subagent at Enid, Okla., Earl R. Lee, who has been such subagent since June 23, 1923, under a written contract, until June, 1931; that on May 9, 1930, Lee wrote certain policies, including the one in question, and delivered the same to the defendant; that the name of Gross R. Scruggs did not appear on any of the policies, and that he was not known to the defendant in the transaction; that on June 11, 1930, Kessinger settled with Lee for the premiums on the policies by striking a balance with him as between such premium and an account for jewelry which Kessinger had against Lee, and received from Lee a receipt showing said premium paid; that Kessinger did not know that Lee was agent for Scruggs, or that Scruggs claimed any interest in the premiums until in July, 1931, when the attorney for the plaintiff wrote him demanding payment.

¶3 Lee testified as a witness on behalf of the defendant to the effect that he had settled with Scruggs & Company for the premiums sued for, and the trial court found that the plaintiff did not show that Lee owed him anything. The plaintiff offered in evidence a statement of the account of Lee with him, dated April 17,, 1931, which had been prepared by a certified public accountant at the direction of the plaintiff and a copy of which had been sent by the plaintiff to Lee, which statement showed accounts receivable charged against Lee, including the account against the defendant in the amount of $1,764.75. This statement also showed that as against this charge of $1,764.75 Lee was given credit for $800 salary checks. The evidence did not show that the plaintiff had made the application of said salary or part thereof upon the Kessinger account, but applying the same...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Pure Oil Co. v. Quarles
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1938
    ...incorporated in the record on appeal by means of case-made or bill of exceptions. Larkin v. Barker, 134 Okla. 46, 272 P. 882; Scruggs v. Kessinger, 175 Okla. 510. 53 P.2d 1125. Plaintiffs also take the position that in no event will rulings be reviewed in the absence of exceptions timely ma......
  • Pure Oil Co. v. Quarles
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1938
    ...upon the face of the record depends upon exceptions thereto, the decision in Larkin v. Barker, supra, is overruled. See, also, Scruggs v. Kessinger, supra, the court in the body of the opinion purports to apply the rule stated in the Larkin Case. The language there used in connection with t......
  • Scruggs v. Kessinger
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1936

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT