Title: BASS v. THE CITY OF ATOKA et al.
Citation: 184 P. 57 3, 1919 OK 297, 76 Okla. 58
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: October 14, 1919

BASS v. THE CITY OF ATOKA et al. Annotate this Case BASS v. THE CITY OF ATOKA et al. 1919 OK 297 184 P. 573 76 Okla. 58 Case Number: 9466 Decided: 10/14/1919 Supreme Court of Oklahoma BASS v. THE CITY OF ATOKA et al. Syllabus ¶0 Appeal and Error--Evidence--Sufficiency. Where the only error complained of is that the verdict of the jury and the judgment thereon are not supported by the evidence, where there is any evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict, the same must be sustained. Held, from an examination of the record, the evidence reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court approving same. Error from District Court, Atoka County; J. H. Linebaugh, Judge. Action by Amos K. Bass against the City of Atoka and J. E. Davis. Judgment for defendant City of Atoka, and plaintiff, Bass, brings error. Affirmed. McPherren & Cochran, for plaintiff in error. Ira J. Banta and I. L. Cook, for defendant in error City of Atoka. OWEN, C. J. ¶1 This action was begun by plaintiff in error, Bass, against the city of Atoka to recover on a claim alleged to be due from the city to J. E. Davis and by Davis assigned to Bass. The city answered denying any indebtedness to Davis. The case was tried to a jury and verdict rendered in favor of the city. The only error presented by counsel is that the verdict of the jury and the judgment thereon are not supported by the evidence. There was a sharp conflict in the evidence, the city claiming to have paid Davis the full amount due under his contract, and Davis admitting he received the amount, but claiming a portion of the amount, by an arrangement with the mayor, was to reimburse him for expense incurred and was not applied to the credit of the city's indebtedness to him. This issue was submitted to the jury, under proper instruction, and the evidence reasonably tending to support the verdict, such verdict and judgment thereon must be sustained. Muskogee Elec. Tract. Co. v. Rye, ¶2 Therefore the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.