Court Opinion

ID: 9792065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:22:34.372448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.417987
License: Public Domain

WELCH, Justice
(dissenting).
The rule is well settled that a demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence admits every fact which such evidence tends in the slightest degree to prove, with all evidence favor*413able to defendant, the demurrant, eliminated from consideration, or considered as withdrawn for the purpose of passing upon such demurrer.
That rule has been stated and applied in many cases. I refer specifically to Buellesfeld v. Jones, 187 Okl. 596, 105 P.2d 242; Davis v. Curry, 192 Okl. 32, 133 P.2d 186, and Duck v. Selected Investment Corporation, 196 Okl. 547, 167 P.2d 54.
Application of the rule of those decisions to this case demonstrate, as I view it, that the trial court in this case erred in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence and that reversal is required here as in the three cited cases.
I am authorized to say that IRWIN, J., concurs in these dissenting views.