Oaks v. Samples
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sheppard v. Gaddy (Okla. 1950)
- Nolan v. Mathis (Okla. 1928)
- Hilsmeyer v. Berry (Okla. 1928)
- Oklahoma State Bank of OcheLata v. Ward (Okla. 1927)
- Pittsburg County Ry. Co. v. Hasty (Okla. 1924)
- Shackelford v. Goodnight (Okla. 1924)
- Bounds v. Gooch (Okla. 1923)
- Henderson v. Todd (Okla. 1923)
- West v. Oakey (Okla. 1921)
- St. Louis-S. F. R. Co. v. Donahoo (Okla. 1921)
- Town of Watonga v. Morrison (Okla. 1920)
- Railway Mail Ass'n v. Edmonds (Okla. 1920)
- McDonald, Adm'r v. Strawn (Okla. 1920)
- Foxley v. Gallagher (Utah 1919)
- Bank of Commerce of Sulphur v. Webster (Okla. 1918)
- Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks (Okla. 1917)
- Norman v. Lambert (Okla. 1917)
- Barnes v. Universal Tire Protector Co. (Okla. 1917)
- Walker v. Sager (Okla. 1917)
- Ewert v. Cooper (Okla. 1917)
- Martin v. National Bank of Claremore (Okla. 1938)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
This was an. action for a balance claimed to be due upon a real estate transaction. Judgment was for defendant in error. The only question presented by the plaintiff in error is that the verdict is. not sustained by the evidence.
It appears from the record that the plaintiff in error in no way challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to-support a verdict in favor of defendant in error until after the verdict was rendered. It came too late then to save the point now presented. It has been frequently and uniformly held by this court that, if the plaintiff in error does not, in some authorized Way, challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict against him duringthe trial and permits the case to go to the jury unchallenged, then nothing is saved to present to this court. Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Reed, 35 Okla. 334, 130 Pac. 157; Reed v. Scott, 50 Okla. 757, 151 Pac. 484; Haizlip v. Whitfield, ante, p. 42, 155 Pac. 863.
We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.