Case ID: okla_42/html/0170-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RITTENPIOUSE, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STREATER v. ESLICK.
    No. 3455.
    Opinion Filed May 12, 1914.
    (140 Pac. 1142.)
    WORK AND LABOR — Evidence. A verdict based upon the testimony of several witnesses that labor performed was reasonably worth. $1.50 per day, and labor and team $3 per day, will not be set aside on the grounds that the verdict was excessive and prompted by the prejudice of the jury.
    (Syllabus by Rittenhouse, C.)
    
      Error from County Court, Seminole County; T. S. Cobb, Judge.
    
    Action by Harrison Eslick against E. E. Streater. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      C. Guy Cutlip and /. A. Baker, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Crump, Bowler & Skinner, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

RITTENPIOUSE, C.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether or not the judgment was excessive. The action is based upon reasonable compensation for labor and team; the-allegations of the petition being that the plaintiff performed labor for defendant for 43 days at $1.50 per day, and 723^ days with team at $3 per day. Four witnesses testified that the charge for said labor and team was reasonably worth the amount asked. The jury returned a verdict for $275.80.

This court cannot say that $1.50 per day for a laborer, and $3 per day for a laborer and team, is excessive. There is sufficient evidence tending to support the judgment of the trial court, and no showing that the judgment was rendered by prejudice or passion.

The judgment of the lower court'should therefore be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.