Title: JONES v. CITIZENS' STATE BANK
Citation: 135 P. 37 3, 1913 OK 557, 39 Okla. 393
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 23, 1913

JONES v. CITIZENS' STATE BANK Annotate this Case JONES v. CITIZENS' STATE BANK 1913 OK 557 135 P. 373 39 Okla. 393 Case Number: 2830 Decided: 09/23/1913 Supreme Court of Oklahoma JONES v. CITIZENS' STATE BANK. Syllabus ¶0 1. TRIAL--Sufficiency of Answer--Raising Question by Motion to Direct Verdict. Where answer denying execution of note is not verified as required by section 3986, St. Okla. 1893 (section 4759, Rev. Laws 1910), but plaintiff joins issue thereon by general denial in reply, and, without in any manner raising the question of sufficiency of answer, evidence pro and con is introduced upon the trial, a motion to direct a verdict for plaintiff does not question the sufficiency of the answer, but raises merely the question of the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict against plaintiff. 2. PLEADING--Amendment -- Verification. Where insufficiency of answer, for want of verification, as denial of execution of note sued on, is not questioned in any way, and its sufficiency appears to have been assumed by both parties throughout the trial, an amendment, by verification, may be allowed in furtherance of justice before or after judgment, under section 4017, St. Okla. 1893 (section 4790, Rev. Laws 1910). 3. APPEAL AND ERROR--Review--Presumption--Direction of Verdict. The question of error in peremptory instruction of verdict must be determined by eliminating all adverse evidence and accepting as true all evidence, including every reasonable inference deducible therefrom, in favor of the party against whom such instruction was given. 4. TRIAL--Direction of Verdict. A verdict cannot be peremptorily instructed against a party where the evidence would sustain one in his favor. 5. BILLS AND