syllabus lays down rule in Oklahoma

1958The decision is confusing and is contrary to the prevailing modern rule and should be, and is overruled.” Also in Lewis v. Smith, 187 Okl. 404 , 103 P.2d 512 , it was recited that White v. Saling and Reynolds v. Wall, supra, had been expressly overruled in Johnson v. Whelan, supra. It should be kept in mind that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants had any *405 thing to do with the erection of the fences dividing their land.

1958The decision is confusing and is contrary to the prevailing modern rule and should be, and is overruled.” Also in Lewis v. Smith, 187 Okl. 404 , 103 P.2d 512 , it was recited that White v. Saling and Reynolds v. Wall, supra, had been expressly overruled in Johnson v. Whelan, supra. It should be kept in mind that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants had any *405 thing to do with the erection of the fences dividing their land.

1937In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Wright, 159 Okla. 198 , 14 P. (2d) 949 , this court held: “The general rule is that, in cases of that kind,. thP findings of the trial court will not he disturbed where the evidence is conflicting, as it was in this case, and is not overwhelming for the other side.” In Wheeler v. American Investment Co., 167 Okla. 558 , 31 P. (2d) 117 , the 4th paragraph of the syllabus lays down the rule with clarity, and the statement is as follows: “In a case, of purely equitable cognizance, this court will examine and weigh the evidence, but the findings and judgment of the tri

1937In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Wright, 159 Okla. 198 , 14 P. (2d) 949 , this court held: “The general rule is that, in cases of that kind,. thP findings of the trial court will not he disturbed where the evidence is conflicting, as it was in this case, and is not overwhelming for the other side.” In Wheeler v. American Investment Co., 167 Okla. 558 , 31 P. (2d) 117 , the 4th paragraph of the syllabus lays down the rule with clarity, and the statement is as follows: “In a case, of purely equitable cognizance, this court will examine and weigh the evidence, but the findings and judgment of the tri

1937In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Wright, 159 Okla. 198 , 14 P. (2d) 949 , this court held: “The general rule is that, in cases of that kind,. thP findings of the trial court will not he disturbed where the evidence is conflicting, as it was in this case, and is not overwhelming for the other side.” In Wheeler v. American Investment Co., 167 Okla. 558 , 31 P. (2d) 117 , the 4th paragraph of the syllabus lays down the rule with clarity, and the statement is as follows: “In a case, of purely equitable cognizance, this court will examine and weigh the evidence, but the findings and judgment of the tri

1937In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Wright, 159 Okla. 198 , 14 P. (2d) 949 , this court held: “The general rule is that, in cases of that kind,. thP findings of the trial court will not he disturbed where the evidence is conflicting, as it was in this case, and is not overwhelming for the other side.” In Wheeler v. American Investment Co., 167 Okla. 558 , 31 P. (2d) 117 , the 4th paragraph of the syllabus lays down the rule with clarity, and the statement is as follows: “In a case, of purely equitable cognizance, this court will examine and weigh the evidence, but the findings and judgment of the tri

1937In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Wright, 159 Okla. 198 , 14 P. (2d) 949 , this court held: “The general rule is that, in cases of that kind,. thP findings of the trial court will not he disturbed where the evidence is conflicting, as it was in this case, and is not overwhelming for the other side.” In Wheeler v. American Investment Co., 167 Okla. 558 , 31 P. (2d) 117 , the 4th paragraph of the syllabus lays down the rule with clarity, and the statement is as follows: “In a case, of purely equitable cognizance, this court will examine and weigh the evidence, but the findings and judgment of the tri

1937In Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Wright, 159 Okla. 198 , 14 P. (2d) 949 , this court held: “The general rule is that, in cases of that kind,. thP findings of the trial court will not he disturbed where the evidence is conflicting, as it was in this case, and is not overwhelming for the other side.” In Wheeler v. American Investment Co., 167 Okla. 558 , 31 P. (2d) 117 , the 4th paragraph of the syllabus lays down the rule with clarity, and the statement is as follows: “In a case, of purely equitable cognizance, this court will examine and weigh the evidence, but the findings and judgment of the tri

1924Co., 11 Okla, 579, 69 Pac. 936 , this court in section 3 of the syllabus lays down this rule: “An applicant for insurance who accepts a policy, the provisions of which are plain, clear, and free from all ambiguity, is chargeable with knowledge of its terms and legal effect.

1924Stat. 1921), provides: . ‘.‘In gn- action brought to establish, a lien thq,,party for whom judgment, is. rendered Shall' be entitled to recover a reasonable attorney’s. fe¿ to be .fixed. by the court, which shall" be taxed as cost in the action.” And, in .the case of Holland Banking Co. v. Dicks, 67 Okla. 228 , 170 Pac., page 253, the court held that -the attorney’s fee could not. be. allowed without. the introduction of testimony, and . the fifth paragraph. of the syllabus lays down this rule: .

1916Law, 12, 62 Atl. 489 , the Supreme Court of New Jersey in one paragraph of the syllabus lays down the doctrine as follows : “Loss of profits in business are recoverable as damages in actions of tort, when they are capable of being estimated with reasonable certainty; but, where the proof furnishes no data from which the jury may find with reasonable certainty the amount of the profits recoverable as damages as the result of the accident, it is error for the court to submit this element of damages to the jury.” *467 And in the body of the opinion the court says: “There was no proof in the cause