Woods v. Faurot
| Decision Date | 11 June 1904 |
| Citation | 14 Okla. 171,77 P. 346,1904 OK 56 |
| Parties | WOODS, Sheriff, et al. v. FAUROT. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
¶0 1. Where range stock is the subject of a contract of sale, a gathering together of the stock, and turning it out of the inclosed pasture of the seller into the inclosed pasture of the purchaser, for the purpose of perfecting such sale, is a sufficient delivery and change of possession to satisfy the statute requiring an immediate delivery followed by an actual and continued change of possession.
2. On cross-examination of a witness, the party cross-examining should be confined to the matters concerning which the witness has been examined in chief.
3. After a party has parted with the title and possession of personal property, his declarations made subsequently respecting the ownership or title to the property, as a general rule, cannot be introduced in evidence by a third party to defeat the title of his vendee.
H. A. Noah, for plaintiffs in error.
D. P. Marum, for defendant in error.
¶1 It appears from the record that in 1901 one Sam Hames was the owner of a large number of cattle and several head of horses, which he kept in a pasture in Woodward county. He was at the same time indebted to the Woods County Bank upon a promissory note in the sum of $100 and interest. In December, 1901, the bank brought suit in the district court of Woodward county against Hames to recover judgment on said note, and procured a writ of attachment to issue against the property of Hames. This writ was delivered to the plaintiff in error Woods, as sheriff of Woodward county, and was on the 10th day of December, 1901, levied upon the horses in controversy in this action. Some months prior to the bringing of this action, Hames had sold the cattle and horses to James McGurn, and agreed to keep them for him without cost or expense until January, 1902. On December 7, 1901, McGurn sold the horses to Faurot, the defendant in error, and the next day the horses were moved out of Hames' pasture and placed in the Faurot pasture by an employe of Faurot, and at the direction of McGurn and Faurot. After this change, on December 10th, the sheriff of Woodward county levied the writ of attachment against Hames, and took possession of the horses, and Faurot brought replevin to recover the horses. On motion the bank was substituted for the sheriff, and defended the replevin action. The cause was tried to a jury, and verdict returned and judgment rendered in favor of Faurot for the value of the horses, and damages for the detention of the same. The bank appeals, and the only alleged error properly saved, assigned in the motion for new trial, and embodied in the petition in error, is the fifth cause assigned as grounds for a new trial, viz., "Errors of law occurring at the trial, and excepted to by the defendants."
¶2 The attachment was attempted to be sustained upon the theory that there had been no actual delivery of the horses from Hames to McGurn, followed by actual and continued change of possession, nor was any such delivery and change of possession made from McGurn to Faurot. The evidence does not support...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chi., R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Hughes
...at the proper time. The cross-examination of a witness should be confined to the subject-matter of his direct examination. Woods v. Faurot, 14 Okla. 171, 77 P. 346; C., R. I. & P. v. Beatty, 34 Okla. 321, 118 P. 367, 126 P. 736, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 984. And the limits to which counsel may b......
-
Town of Sentinel v. Riley
... ... has been examined in chief, but he may be asked any question which reasonably tends to explain, contradict, or discredit his testimony.' Woods v. Faurot, 14 Okla. 171, 77 P. 346. To the same effect see Weleetka Light & Water Co. v. Burleson, 42 Okla. 748, 142 P. 1029; Farmers' Product & ... ...
-
Town of Sentinel v. Boggs
...to the matters about which inquiry is made upon direct examination or that go to the credibility of the witness. In Woods v. Faurot, 14 Okla. 171, 77 P. 346, this court said:"The general rule is that, on cross-examination, the party cross-examining is only entitled to examination the witnes......
-
Harrold v. Territory Oklahoma
... ... The English courts follow the latter rule, while the American courts largely follow the former. This court, in Woods, et al. v. Faraut, 14 Okla. 171, stated the rule thus: "On cross examination of a witness the party cross-examining should be confined to the matters ... ...