Case Name: James Lucas et al. v. C. E. Brakefield
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1899-04-10
Citations: 8 Okla. 284
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Lucas et al. v. C. E. Brakefield.
Judges: Burford, O. J.: having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 284–286

Head Matter:
James Lucas et al. v. C. E. Brakefield.
(Filed April 10, 1899.)
1. Conversion — Damages—Evidence. This was an action to recover damages for the carrying away and conversion by the sheriff, on behalf of the defendant, of wheat belonging to the plaintiff. Evidence was introduced tending to show that the wheat was seized by the sheriff under an execution issued upon a void judgment, which had been rendered by a justice of the peace, and that the wheat belonged to the plaintiff, and .evidence was given of its value.
2. Verdict — "Not Disturbed. "While evidence was offered tending to contradict the evidence thus introduced, yet, upon submission to the jury, a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and, having been based upon evidence which reasonably tended to support it, it will not be disturbed here.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from the District Court of Canadian County; before Jno. E. Burford, District Judge.
C. E. Carsioell and J. J. Carney, for plaintiffs in error.
W. E. Criley, for defendant in error.
Action by C. E. Brakeñeld against James Lucas and W. D. Bareli. This was an action brought before a justice of the peace in Canadian county to recover damages for the conversion of grain, in which the defendant in error here was plaintiff. The bill of particulars charged that on the 22d day of January, 1894, the defendants', Lucas and Porch, carried away and converted to their own use 312 bushels of wheat, the property of the plaintiff, of the value of $99.84, which was due to the plaintiff, and remained unpaid, and for which he demanded judg ment. No answer was filed below. Upon trial, judgment was rendered for tbe plaintiff in tbe case, and appeal taken by tbe defendants to tbe district court, where it was again tried to a jury, and a verdict rendered in behalf of tbe plaintiff, defendant in error here. Tbe case is brought bere for a reversal of tbis judgment.
Affirmed.

Opinion:
Opinion of the court by
McAtee, J.:
Some immaterial matters, entitled, "Suggestion- of Amendments," and "Supplemental Bill of Particulars and Plea of Estoppel," are admitted to have been included in tbe record after tbe rendition of judgment, and without leave of court. They are no part of tbe case, and are not considered bere.
Tbe grounds upon which tbe motion for a new trial was made were (1) that tbe verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to it; (2) was contrary to law; and (3) for errors of law occurring at tbe trial. Tbe only proposition argued in tbe brief of plaintiffs in error was that tbe verdict was not sustained by tbe evidence.
Tbbe evidence tended to show that tbe wheat was seized by the sheriff of Canadian county under an execution issued upon a void judgment which bad been rendered by a justice of tbe peace of that county, in which action Brakefield was defendant, and that the property was sold thereunder as tbe property of Brakefield. Evidence was given to tbe jury to show that tbe wheat was raised upon tbe farm of Brakefield, where be lived in January, 1894; that tbe work was done by bis son and a hired man; that it was bis own property, and was sold against bis protest at tbe time. Evidence was also given to the jury showing the quantity of the wheat and the price per bushel, sustaining the amount of the judgment demanded, and of the verdict, by the jury, and that the amount remained unpaid. While a good deal of testimony was offered to controvert the testimony thus adduced by the plaintiff, Brakefeld, yet, upon submission to the jury, a verdict was rendered in his behalf for the amount claimed, and this verdict, having been based upon evidence which reasonably tended to support it, it will not be disturbed here. (Bank v. Earle, 2 Okla., 617, 39 Pac. 391.)
The judgment of the court below will therefore be affirmed:
Burford, O. J.: having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of the other Justices concurring.