Court Opinion

ID: 9824250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:33:02.707894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:39.794542
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is urged that the court overlooked a controlling decision, that of Jones v. Citizens’ State Bank, 39 Okla. 393, 135 Pac. 374, and that it is held in this case that the filing of a reply to an unverified answer in an action on a promissory note waives the verification of the answer. An examination of this case discloses *40that the tenth paragraph of the syllabus, which sustains the contention above made, was not written by the court, but was added by the publishers, and it does not correctly state the holding of the court as disclosed by the opinion, and is misleading and erroneous. In the Jones case the answer not only contained a denial of the execution and delivery of the note, but other matters of affirmative defense. A reply was filed to the answer, and the parties proceeded to tidal. Evidence was offered by the plaintiff and by the defendant, and at the close of the evidence the plaintiff moved for an instructed verdict. The court said:
“The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict for the defendant is the sole question that could have been determined by the trial court upon the motion for the instructed verdict.”
If the sole question raised by the motion for a directed verdict in the instant case was whether the evidence would sustain a verdict for the defendant, there could be but one answer returned, since no evidence had been offered on behalf of the defendant, and the only evidence in the case was the note in suit, the integrity of which was admitted by the defendant by his failure to deny the execution thereof under oath. Section 4759, Rev. Laws 1910. Filing the reply was not a waiver of the effect of a failure of the defendant to verify his answer. We are unable to find anything in the Jones case contrary to the holding of the original opinion filed in the instant case, and upon re-examination of that decision, we are confirmed in our conclusion that the same is sound, and are therefore constrained to adhere to- the same.
The petition for rehearing should be denied.
By the Court: It is so ordered.