Title: HARRIS v. GRIMSTEAD
Citation: 112 Okla. 59, 1925 OK 557, 242 P. 15 4
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1925

HARRIS v. GRIMSTEAD Annotate this Case HARRIS v. GRIMSTEAD 1925 OK 557 242 P. 154 112 Okla. 59 Case Number: 15437 Decided: 06/30/1925 Supreme Court of Oklahoma HARRIS v. GRIMSTEAD et al. Syllabus ¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Questions of Fact--Conclusiveness of Verdict. A judgment of the court based upon the verdict of a jury, in a law action, will not be reversed on appeal if there is any competent evidence which reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury. 2. Same--Judgment Sustained. Record examined; held, to be sufficient to support verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4. Error from District Court, Osage County; Jesse J. Worten, Judge. Action by E. E. Grimstead and Eugene F. Scott, a partnership, against Pat H. Harris for debt. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. Ben Franklin, for plaintiff in error. Wm. S. Hamilton and Edw. C. Gross, for defendants in error. STEPHENSON, C. ¶1 E. E. Grimstead and Eugene F. Scott, a partnership, engaged in the practice of law, commenced their action against Pat H. Harris, to recover for legal services rendered for the defendant. The trial of the cause resulted in judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant has appealed the cause to this court and assigns as error that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and the evidence. ¶2 It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence given in the trial of the cause by the respective parties. It is sufficient to say that there is ample competent evidence to support the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiffs. Young v. Eaton, 82 Okla. 166 , 198 P. 857. ¶3 It is recommended that the judgment be affirmed.