Sharum v. Sharum

• Decision Date: 14 June 1921
• Docket Number: Case Number: 11989
• Parties: SHARUM v. SHARUM.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1921 OK 233

200 P. 176

82 Okla. 266

SHARUM v. SHARUM.

Case Number: 11989

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 14, 1921

Syllabus

¶0 1. Pleading--Motion to Make Definite and Certain--Requisites. Where a motion to make a petition more definite and certain and to separately state and number the facts supposed to constitute each separate and distinct cause of action, so that the court may act intelligently thereon, is filed, and said motion fails to, in any manner, point out wherein said petition is indefinite and uncertain, it is not error to overrule such motion.

2. Trial--Demurrer to Evidence--Consideration. In passing upon a demurrer to the evidence, the court does not weigh the evidence. The demurrer admits every fact which the evidence in the slightest degree tends to prove and all inferences and conclusions that may be reasonably and logically drawn from the same, and, where there is any conflict in the plaintiff's evidence that would make any part of it unfavorable to plaintiff or sustain the defense, the court, in passing upon such demurrer, should consider such evidence withdrawn.

3. Trial--Motion to Direct Verdict--Consideration. A motion to direct a verdict admits all the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, and leaves for consideration only such evidence as is favorable to the party against whom such motion is directed.

4. Same--Province of Jury--Questions of Fact. Where, after disregarding all evidence tending to sustain the defense, there is any evidence from which an inference favorable to the plaintiff may be reasonably, although not necessarily, drawn, the court will not invade the province of the jury by withdrawing from it the right to pass on the facts to be deduced from such inference.

5. Appeal and Error--Review--Questions of Fact--Verdict. In a civil action triable to the jury, where there is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury, and no prejudicial errors of law are shown in the instructions of the court, or its ruling on law questions presented during the trial, the verdict and the finding of the jury will not be disturbed on appeal.

6. Assault and Battery--Action for Damages Against One Instigating--Judgment--Affirmance. Record examined, and held, that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

W. J. Crump, R. P. deGraffenreid, and Myron White, for plaintiff in error.

Harry G. Davis and Neff & Neff, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, J.

¶1 On the first day of May, 1920. Allie Sharum, as plaintiff, commenced an action against A. H. Sharum, as defendant, to recover the sum of $ 50,000 actual, and $ 100,000 exemplary, damages, which cause was tried to the court and jury on October 13, 1920, resulting an a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $ 15,000, to reverse which this proceeding in error has been regularly commenced. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as plaintiff and defendant, respectively, as they appeared in the trial court.Omitting the formal parts thereof, the plaintiff's petition alleged as follows:

"For cause of action against the defendant, plaintiff states and alleges; that Julian Sharum is a son of the defendant, A. H. Sharum; that this plaintiff and said Julian Sharum were lawfully married at Atoka, Oklahoma, during the month of July, 1906; that as a result of said marriage two children have been born, their names being Vernor Sharum, 12 years of age, and Albert Sharum, 6 years of age; that at the time plaintiff and said Julian Sharum were married, and at various times since said marriage, the said Julian Sharum was and has been the owner of various pieces of property located in the city of Muskogee, Oklahoma, and had interest in other property located at various places in the state of Oklahoma; that shortly after said marriage the defendant, A. H. Sharum, commenced to work upon said Julian Sharum for the purpose of obtaining from Julian Sharum all the property he then had and to convert the same to the use and benefit of the defendant. A. H. Sharum, for the purpose of depriving this plaintiff of any use or enjoyment thereof, and for the purpose of alienating the affections of the said Julian Sharum from this plaintiff and to induce him to abandon her; and the said A. H. Sharum and Julian Sharum conspired together to get rid of this plaintiff so that they would not have to allow her any part of said property to be used and enjoyed by her for the support of herself and her children by the said Julian Sharum; that the defendant, A. H. Sharum, at all times since the marriage above mentioned had and exercised an undue influence and control over the said Julian Sharum and persuaded him to convey to the said A. H. Sharum all of the property owned or held by the said Julian Sharum under a purported agreement whereby the said A. H. Sharum was to support the said Julian Sharum and his family during the life of him and said Julian Sharum and during the lives of the children of this plaintiff and said Julian Sharum; that the said Julian Sharum, believing that said agreement would be performed and being over-persuaded and overreached by the defendant, A. H. Sharum, conveyed all his property to the defendant, A. H. Sharum; that during the month of November, 1917, for the purpose of bringing about a separation between this plaintiff and the said Julian Sharum, and for the further purpose of aiding him, the said A. H. Sharum, to secure from the said Julian Sharum all his property and effects, the said A. H. Sharum induced and persuaded the said Julian Sharum, then the husband of this plaintiff, to leave plaintiff and the two minor children herein named and he, the said defendant, took the said Julian Sharum into his home and has ever since kept him there away from this plaintiff and said children; that the said defendant, A. H. Sharum, has a beautiful home and bestows upon the said Julian Sharum and did bestow upon him the said Julian Sharum, from the month of November, 1917, all the comforts and luxuries of life but that at said time and ever since said time, to wit, November, 1917, the said A. H. Sharum has refused admission to said home to this plaintiff or to the children of plaintiff and the said Julian Sharum, and has repeatedly and by force and threats driven the said children of this plaintiff and the said Julian Sharum, away from his home and the shelter he offered and bestowed upon their father; that the said A. H. Sharum insisted that the said Julian Sharum should remain at the home of the defendant and away from the plaintiff and her children and should not assist them in their support for the reason that by so doing he, the said A. H. Sharum, would be better able to control his son and prevent this plaintiff from sharing in any way in the property justly and rightfully due said Julian Sharum; that while plaintiff and the said Julian Sharum lived together the said Julian Sharum provided a home, clothing and food for plaintiff and her two children, but that after the said Julian Sharum was taken into the home of the defendant, this plaintiff and said two children were left in a destitute condition without a home, clothing and without food and that this plaintiff and her children were forced to rely upon charity for several months and that from the said month of November, the said Julian Sharum, owing to the influence and control exercised over him by the defendant, A. H. Sharum, has failed and refused to contribute anything whatsoever towards the support of the plaintiff and said children.

¶2 "Plaintiff further states that the said defendant A. H. Sharum, after almost two years of interference with plaintiff and her husband and the said minor children and in denying plaintiff access to the home in which her husband was kept and in denying his own grandchildren the right and privilege of visiting their own father had failed to induce this plaintiff to abandon her right of support, he, the said A. H. Sharum, advised, directed and coerced the said Julian Sharum, his son, and who was under his control, to beat and otherwise injure this plaintiff and to put her in fear of her life, and under said advice, direction and coercion, he, the said Julian Sharum, did beat and otherwise injure this plaintiff and did put her in fear of her life, for the purpose on the part of him, the said A. H. Sharum, to compel her, this plaintiff, for the protection of her life and that of her children to procure a divorce from the said Julian Sharum; that after the said Julian Sharum pursuant to the direction, advice and coercion of the defendant, A. H. Sharum, had gone to the place where this plaintiff and her said children were staying, had struck plaintiff with his fist, knocked her down, bruised her face and body, kicked her and threatened to kill her, the said A. H. Sharum told this plaintiff that Julian Sharum, his son, would probably kill her if she did not get a divorce from him and plaintiff was thereby put in great fear and did bring suit for divorce against the said Julian Sharum; that in said suit the defendant, A. H. Sharum, employed an attorney and took charge of the defense of said suit; that in said divorce suit this plaintiff was awarded the sum of $ 40.00 per month alimony but that the said defendant, A. H. Sharum, then and there told this plaintiff that she would never receive a dime, and he, the said A. H. Sharum, has prevented the said Julian Sharum from paying any of the said alimony and has often boasted that he would prevent Julian Sharum from ever paying this plaintiff anything recovered by her under said judgment; that the said defendant during all of said time that the plaintiff and Julian Sharum were married has been actuated by greed and avarice and has acted wantonly and maliciously towards this plaintiff and should be required to pay large exemplary damages; that said defendant, A. H. Sharum,...