Newton v. Okmulgee Grocery Co.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Willie & Penix v. Paramore (Okla. 1935)
- Bilby v. Anglin (Okla. 1932)
- Sallee v. Craddock (Okla. 1931)
- Cushing Refining & Gasoline Co. v. Deshan (Okla. 1931)
- Crow v. Wells (Okla. 1930)
- Schwarze v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. (Okla. 1929)
- Markle v. Stekoll (Okla. 1929)
- City of Chickasha v. Daniels (Okla. 1926)
- Watson v. Phillips (Okla. 1926)
- Midland Valley R. Co. v. Neeley (Okla. 1925)
- Milburn v. Miners' & Citizens' Bank (Okla. 1924)
- Producers' & Refiners' Corp. v. Castile (Okla. 1923)
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
This action was filed by defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error to recover on open account. The case was submitted to the jury, and a judgment returned for the plaintiff. The only assignment of error presented in the brief of the plaintiffs in error is:
“The verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to the evidence.
No demurrer was filed to plaintiff’s evidence, no request was made for an instructed verdict, and defendants acquiesced in the submission of the issues to the jury. This court has held that under such circumstances, and where the sufficiency of the evidence is not attacked in any manner until the motion for a new trial is filed, the question whether there is any evidence reasonably sufficient to support defense is not presented for review by defendants' motion for a new trial and will not be considered by this court Norman v. Lambert, 64 Okla. 238, 167 Pac. 213; Constantin Refining Co. v. Thwing Instrument Co., 72 Oklahoma, 178 Pac. 111; Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks, 67 Okla. 228, 170 Pac. 253.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.