Title: DANIELS v. ROBERTS
Citation: 103 Okla. 294, 1924 OK 946, 229 P. 104 4
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: October 21, 1924

DANIELS v. ROBERTS Annotate this Case DANIELS v. ROBERTS 1924 OK 946 229 P. 1044 103 Okla. 294 Case Number: 13743 Decided: 10/21/1924 Supreme Court of Oklahoma DANIELS et al. v. ROBERTS. Syllabus ¶0 Mechanics' Liens--Enforcement--Appeal--Conflicting Evidence--Special Findings. In an action to enforce a materialman's lien, where the evidence is in conflict on every material issue and the court, at the request of defendants, submits four special interrogatories to the jury covering all material issues, which interrogatories are answered by the jury adversely to the contentions of defendants, and such special findings are in conformity to the general verdict, a judgment based upon the verdict and special findings will not be disturbed in this court. H. H. Montgomery and S. J. Montgomery, for plaintiffs in error. Rowland & Talbott and George B. Schwabe, for defendant in error. LOGDSON, C. ¶1 For reversal of this case defendants rely upon four propositions stated in their brief thus: "(1) These plaintiffs in error contend that the court committed error in refusing to sustain the demurrers to the evidence introduced in the trial on the part of the defendant in error. "(2) The verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court were clearly contrary to the evidence. "(3) The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to find for the plaintiffs in error herein when they requested such instructions at the close of all the testimony. "(4) The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to find for C. H. Evans." ¶2 A mere reading of the four propositions as stated shows that each and all of them question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. It will, therefore, not be necessary to discuss these propositions separately, but they may all be considered under the general question as to whether there is evidence in the record reasonably tending to support the verdict and judgment. The testimony in the record shows about this state of facts: That C. H. Daniels and C. H. Evans were joint owners of the tract of land involved in this action; that they had organized the Daniels-Evans Oil Company, C. H. Daniels being president and C. H. Evans secretary-treasurer; that they had executed an oil and gas lease on the premises to E. R. Hutchins who was to drill a test well; Daniels and Evans or the Daniels-Evans Oil Company were to furnish the supplies for the drilling of this well; Daniels and Evans had previously dealt with the plaintiff as individuals: Daniels called the plaintiff over the phone and made the contract for the casing which plaintiff thereafter furnished for the drilling of this well; C. H. Evans, during this phone conversation, listened in over an extension 'phone and knew all the details of the trade made at that time; the evidence is conflicting as to whether in that phone conversation Daniels told the plaintiff that he was purchasing the casing for the Daniels-Evans Oil Company; the casing was thereafter delivered upon the premises by the plaintiff, and all of it except three joints was used in the test well; considerable correspondence thereafter took place between Daniels and the plaintiff in which Daniels sought to show that the casing was sold to the Daniels-Evans Oil Company and not to Daniels and Evans as individuals; all of these matters were in evidence before the jury and were considered and passed upon by the jury as is shown by the following special findings made by the jury at the request of Daniels and Evans: "Special Finding No. 1. Did the defendant, Daniels-Evans Oil Company, a corporation, procure from the plaintiff the pipe described in plaintiff's petition herein? "Answer: Yes. "Special Finding No. 2. Did the defendants, C. H. Daniels and C. H. Evans, or either of them, procure from the plaintiff the said pipe in their individual capacity and upon their individual liability? "Answer: Yes. "Special Finding No. 3. Was C. H. Daniels acting for himself individually, or for the Daniels-Evans Oil Company in procuring the pipe involved in this action? "Answer: For himself individually and for Daniels-Evans Oil Company. "Special Finding No. 4. Was C. H. Daniels acting for C. H. Daniels and C. H. Evans as partners when the pipe in controversy was procured? "Answer: C. H. Daniels was acting for himself and C. H. Evans as joint owner." The general verdict of the jury reads: "We the jury impaneled and sworn in the above entitled cause, do upon our oaths find for the plaintiff and fix the amount of his recovery at $ 2,435.87, with interest at six per cent."