W. Supply Co. v. Oil Country Drilling Co.
| Citation | 1924 OK 191,223 P. 399,97 Okla. 188 |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 14659 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | WESTERN SUPPLY COMPANY v. OIL COUNTRY DRILLING CO. |
¶0 1. Trial--Demurrer to Evidence--Motion to Direct Verdict--Consideration.
When a question is presented to a trial court on a demurrer to the sufficiency of the evidence or on a motion to direct a verdict, the rule of law is, whether, admitting the truth of all the evidence which has been given in favor of the party against whom the action is contemplated, together with such inferences and conclusions as may he reasonably drawn from it, there is enough evidence to reasonably sustain a verdict, should the jury find in accordance therewith; if such a state of facts exists, then such demurrer or motion to direct a verdict must be denied.
2. Same
If the inference to be drawn from the evidence is a reasonable one, although not a necessary one, the court will not invade the province of the jury by taking from it the right to pass on the facts to be deduced from such inference.
3. Same--Instruction Invading Province of Jury--Replevin.
It is reversible error for the court, in its instructions, to invade the province of the jury and take from it the determination of the material, controverting, controlling fact and treat it as a question of law, and where, as in the instant case, the question of ownership and right of possession was the controlling, controverting fact, and evidence was introduced to prove that ownership and the right of possession to the property sought to be recovered in an action in replevin was in the defendant and the evidence was conflicting upon this proposition, it was reversible error for the court to charge the jury that there was no evidence to show ownership or right of possession in the defendant.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 5.
Error from District Court, Osage County; Chas. B. Wilson, Jr., Judge.
Action by the Oil Country Drilling Company, a corporation, against the Western Supply Company, a corporation, for recovery of property aggregating the value of $ 10,995. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
Underwood & Rodolf, for plaintiff in error.
A. S. Sands and A. B. Campbell, for defendant in error.
¶1 This is a replevin action commenced in the district court of Osage county by the Oil Country Drilling Company, a corporation, defendant in error, as plaintiff below, against the Western Supply Company, a corporation, plaintiff in error, defendant below, for recovery of certain machinery and oil well supplies, listed in schedule attached to petition and affidavit, aggregating the value of $ 10,995.The parties to this action will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as they appeared in the lower court.
¶2 The petition, affidavit, and bond in replevin are in regular form for an action in replevin.The answer of defendant admitted that plaintiff was entitled to possession of a portion of the property described in said petition and that it had tendered to plaintiff such property as set forth in exhibit "A," attached to said answer, but claimed a portion of said property by virtue of a mortgage and bill of sale from Charles L. Hess for an indebtedness due it in the sum of $ 3,268.32, which property, described in said mortgage and bill of sale, it claimed, was the individual property of the said Charles L. Hess and being a portion of the property sued for and claimed by the plaintiff in this case as its property.
¶3 The cause was tried to a jury and at the close of the testimony on part of the plaintiff the defendant demurred to the sufficiency of the testimony introduced by plaintiff, which demurrer was overruled and exception reserved, and at the close of the testimony on part of plaintiff, the defendant requested an instructed verdict, which was refused by the court and exception reserved. The case was submitted to a jury upon the instructions of the court and the jury returned into court its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for certain articles of the total value of $ 1,847.95.A motion for new trial was filed, presented, and overruled by the court; defendant reserved exceptions and the court pronounced judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the articles mentioned in the verdict in the total sum of $ 1,847.95, for a return of the property, and if the same could not be recovered that plaintiff recover of the defendant the value of said property, or of such portions thereof as was not recovered, to which judgment of the court defendant reserved its exceptions, and the cause comes regularly upon appeal to this court by the defendant from such judgment.
¶4 The attorneys for defendant submit nine assignments of error, upon which they argue that the only issue in the case for the Jury to determine was over the articles of personal property which were sued for and which were not tendered, and which were claimed by the defendant under and by virtue of the chattel mortgage and bill of sale given by Charles L. Hess to the defendant and that the verdict of the jury included certain articles which were tendered to the plaintiff, over which there was no dispute, and that certain articles were included in the verdict which plaintiff did not seek to recover in its petition, and included certain articles which had been returned to plaintiff under its tender, and that they therefore contend that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and contrary to the court's instructions.
¶5 They further contend that the court erred in overruling the defendant's demurrer to the evidence of the plaintiff, and argue that the evidence wholly failed to state a cause of action for the return of the personal property in question, and that the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own right to possession and not on the weakness of the defendant's right to possession, and there is no competent evidence to prove that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of them or entitled to the value thereof, and claimed that there was no identification of the chattels. It is further contended that the property mentioned in the mortgage was the individual property of Charles L. Hess and not the property of the corporation of which he was president, or, if it were the property of the corporation, that Charles L. Hess was the principal stockholder of the corporation, and was the manager thereof, and transacted the business of the corporation as he saw fit, and that the court erred in giving the following instruction to the jury:
"You are instructed, however, that the evidence in this case fails...
To continue reading
Request your trial