Case ID: okla_88/html/0241-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MeNEILL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HAMMONS et al. v. LANGFORD.
    No. 10864
    Opinion Filed Feb. 13, 1923.
    (Syllabus.)
    ■ 1. Trial — Sufficiency of Distractions — Requests.
    It is not error to refuse to give a requested instruction that correctly states the law, if substantially the same instruction is embodied in the charge of the court to the jury and the charge as a whole correctly states the law applicable to the facts in the case.
    2. Supersedeas — Action on Bond — Instructions — Evidence—Verdict.
    Record examined, and held, there was no error in refusing the instruction requested, and the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict rendered.
    Error from District Court, Jefferson County; Cham Jones, Judge.
    Action by W. C. Langford against A. W. Hammons and others on supersedeas bond. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Ledbetter, Furman & Ledbetter, for plaintiffs in error.
    Green & Pruett, for defendant in error.
   MeNEILL, J.

Tbe questions involved in this appeal are identical with the question involved in the case of Mobley v. Langford, No. 10863, this day decided by this court. The facts are practically the same. The same hind and character of supersedeas bond is involved, but the tract of land involved was different. The parties have briefed the cases together and rely upon the same assignments of error, and the giving of the same instructions by the court, and the refusing to give the same instructions requested as in case No. 10863.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and upon authority of the case of Mobley v. Langford, this day decided.

JOHNSON, Y. O. J. and KANE, KENNA-MER, NICHOLSON, COCHRAN, and BRAN-SON, JJ., concur.