Title: MARLOW v. CHARBONNET
Citation: 126 P.2d 525, 190 Okla. 654, 1942 OK 221
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: June 2, 1942

MARLOW v. CHARBONNET Annotate this Case MARLOW v. CHARBONNET 1942 OK 221 126 P.2d 525 190 Okla. 654 Case Number: 30607 Decided: 06/02/1942 Supreme Court of Oklahoma MARLOW v. CHARBONNET et al. Syllabus ¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Verdict sustained by competent evidence not disturbed. In an action of legal cognizance, where there is any competent evidence which reasonably tends to support the verdict of a jury, and such verdict has received the approval of the trial court, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Appeal from District Court, Bryan County; Roy Paul, Judge. Action in forcible entry and unlawful detainer by P. N. Charbonnet et al. against C. H. Marlow. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. J. A. Shirley, of Durant, for plaintiff in error. R. T. Stinson, of Durant, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. ¶1 P. N. Charbonnet, guardian of E. Roger Kemp, and Charles S. Calhoun, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, instituted an action in forcible entry and unlawful detainer against C. H. Marlow, hereinafter referred to as defendant, in a justice of the peace court for possession of a certain tract of real property. Defendant prevailed, and plaintiffs appealed to the district court of Bryan county, where the cause was tried to a jury. The jury found the defendant "guilty," and the court entered judgment for possession of the property in favor of plaintiffs. ¶2 On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. Examination of the record discloses that defendant sought to establish a parol contract with plaintiffs for the rental of the property herein involved for the year 1941. The evidence of the plaintiffs was positive to the effect that no such contract was made with defendant. Thus there was presented an issue of fact, which was presented to the jury under proper instructions from the court. The verdict is amply sustained by the evidence, and the same has been approved by the trial court. ¶3 The judgment is affirmed. ¶4 WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, GIBSON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. RILEY, HURST, and DAVISON, JJ., absent.