Case Name: OAKS v. SAMPLES
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1916-05-09
Citations: 57 Okla. 660
Docket Number: No. 7324
Parties: OAKS v. SAMPLES.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 57
Pages: 660–661

Head Matter:
OAKS v. SAMPLES.
No. 7324.
Opinion Filed May 9, 1916.
(157 Pac. 739.)
1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Presenting- Questions in Trial Court— Sufficiency of Evidence — Motion for Direction of Verdict. In the absence of a motion for a directed verdict, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is not presented to this court on appeal.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Questions of Fact. If there is .any evidence, including every reasonable inference the jury could have drawn from the same, reasonably tending to support the verdict, this court will not reverse a case for insufficient evidence. '
(Syllabus by Mathews, C.)
Error from District Court, Delaware County; John H. Pitchford, Judge.
Action by H. S. Samples against J. W. Oaks. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
J. G. Austin, for plaintiff in error.
Ad V. Coppedge, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
MATHEWS, C.
This was an. action for a balance claimed to be due upon a real estate transaction. Judgment was for defendant in error. The only question presented by the plaintiff in error is that the verdict is. not sustained by the evidence.
It appears from the record that the plaintiff in error in no way challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to-support a verdict in favor of defendant in error until after the verdict was rendered. It came too late then to save the point now presented. It has been frequently and uniformly held by this court that, if the plaintiff in error does not, in some authorized Way, challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict against him duringthe trial and permits the case to go to the jury unchallenged, then nothing is saved to present to this court. Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Reed, 35 Okla. 334, 130 Pac. 157; Reed v. Scott, 50 Okla. 757, 151 Pac. 484; Haizlip v. Whitfield, ante, p. 42, 155 Pac. 863.
We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.