Case Name: NOWLAN v. HARNER OIL CO. et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1926-05-25
Citations: 118 Okla. 96
Docket Number: No. 16602
Parties: NOWLAN v. HARNER OIL CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
NOWLAN v. HARNER OIL CO. et al.
No. 16602
Opinion Filed May 25, 1926.
E. M. Connor, i<Ar plaintiff in error.
Jennings, Hall & Battenfield, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
STEPHEN SON, O.
Sam P. Wilkerso-n et al. commenced their action a-g'alinst Harner Oil 'Company et al. to< recover for debt on a non-negotiable note. The trial of the cause resulted in judgment for the plaintiffs. Harry H. Nowlan perfected his appeal for review of the proceedings had in obtaining the judgment. The mlain error eotaiplained about is that the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their petition to show that the note was executed on May 1, 1920, instead of January 1, 1920. The record does not indicate that the defendants were misled to their prejudice, nor does the record show a proper m-otlon for a continuance in order to enable the defendants to meet th© amendment. The court did not commit error in this respect. Kingfisher Mill & Elevator Co. v. Westbrook et al., 79 Okla. 190, 192 Pac. 211.
There is sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict in favor o£ Hie ixlaintiffs. Young v. Eaton, 82 Okla. 166, 198 Pac. 857.
The judgment is affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.