Case Name: JOHNSON v. McDONALD et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1934-12-18
Citations: 170 Okla. 117
Docket Number: No. 21895
Parties: JOHNSON v. McDONALD et al.
Judges: RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, McNEILL, OSBORN, andJBAYLESS, JJ., concur. CULLISON, Y. O. J., and BUSBY and WELCH, JJ., absent.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
JOHNSON v. McDONALD et al.
No. 21895.
Dec. 18, 1934.
W. W. Pryor and Hugh M. Sandlin, for plaintiff in error.
W. T. Anglin and Alfred Stevenson, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
ANDREWS, J.
The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants to recover a judgment for an alleged balance on a promissory note. The defense was misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement leading up to the execution thereof, The cause was tried to the court. Judgment was rendered for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.
The questions presented to this court for determination are: Was fraud sufficiently alleged and proven, and was there a sufficient restoration or offer to restore? Those were questions of fact upon which the court passed, and there being competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain tbe judgment of tbe trial court in a law action tried without a jury, the judgment must be and is affirmed.
RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, McNEILL, OSBORN, andJBAYLESS, JJ., concur. CULLISON, Y. O. J., and BUSBY and WELCH, JJ., absent.