Case Name: MADILL OIL & COTTON CO. v. DAVIDSON
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1916-05-02
Citations: 59 Okla. 31
Docket Number: No. 7516
Parties: MADILL OIL & COTTON CO. v. DAVIDSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 31–31

Head Matter:
MADILL OIL & COTTON CO. v. DAVIDSON.
No. 7516
Opinion Filed May 2, 1916.
Rehearing Denied May 23, 1916.
(157 Pac. 354.)
Appeal and Error — Verdict—Evidence.
In an action at law where there is any evidence adduced upon the trial reasonably tending to support a verdict, the same will not be disturbed upon appeal.
(Syllabus by Blcakmore, C.)
Error from District Court, Marshall County : Jesse M. Hatchett. Judge.
Action by the Madill. Oil & Cotton Company against W. O. Davidson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Oeorge S. March and J. E. Holt, for plaintiff in error.
P. E. Kennamer and C. A. Coakley, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
BLEAKMORE, C.
This is an action in replevin commenced h.v the Madill Oil & Cotton Company to recover possession of certain personal property from W. O. Davidson. There was a trial to a jury, resulting in judgment for defendant, and plaintiff has appealed.
The sole question urged by plaintiff in its brief is that there was no evidence to sustain the verdict. An examination of the record discloses that the evidence was conflicting. The rule of universal application in this jurisdiction is that in an action at law where there is any evidence adduced upon the trial reasonably tending to sustain a verdict, the same will not he disturbed upon appeal.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.