Case Name: BANK OF FAIRVIEW v. MARTIN et ux.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-07-23
Citations: 33 Okla. 319
Docket Number: No. 1757
Parties: BANK OF FAIRVIEW v. MARTIN et ux.
Judges: TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and DUNN, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 33
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
BANK OF FAIRVIEW v. MARTIN et ux.
No. 1757.
Opinion Filed July 23, 1912.
(125 Pac. 724.)
1. APPEAL AND ERROR. — Review—Questions of Fact. Where there is evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon, the same will not be disturbed on appeal.
2. SAME — Harmless Error. The court, in every stage of action, must disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party; and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defecti
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Major County Court; O. M. Evans, Judge.
Action by the Bank of Fairview against B. F. Martin and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
D. H. Denman, Tom E. Willis, and John V. Roberts, for plaintiff in error.
■S'. B. Oberlcnder, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
KANE, J.
This was an action commenced by the plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, against the defendants in error, defendants below, to recover damages for the conversion of certain live stock upon which the plaintiff held a chattel mortgage. Upon trial there was a verdict for the defendants, upon which judgment was duly entered, to reverse which this proceeding in error was commenced.
One of the questions submitted to the jury is covered by an instruction to the effect that the burden of proof is upon the defendants to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the cattle which the defendants got from' Mrs. Leach (the mortgagor) are the same cattle which the plaintiff had a prior mort gage on. This instruction covers the principal question of fact presented to the jury, and as they resolved it in favor of the defendants, and there is evidence reasonably tending to support their finding, this court is not at liberty to disturb the judgment of the court below upon the merits.
We have examined the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error and the record with considerable care,, and are satisfied that they' present no contention that would authorize a reversal.
Section 5680, Comp. Laws 1909, provides:
"The court, at every stage of action, must disregard any error or defect in the pleadings or proceedings which does not affect the substantial rights of the adverse party; and no judgment shall be reversed or affected by reason of such error or defect."
The judgment of the court below must therefore be affirmed.
TURNER, C. J., and HAYES and DUNN, JJ., concur; WILLIAMS, J., absent, and not participating.