did not commit error in Oklahoma

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1925Long v. Woodman. 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1925Long v. Woodman. 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1925Long v. Woodman. 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .

1983We therefore hold that the court did not commit error in awarding attorney fees to the defendant’s attorney. * * * * * * From a review of the record we hold that the trial court was correct in awarding defendant his attorney’s fee under 12 O.S.1971 § 1101.... 585 P.2d at 407 .

1972Accordingly, we find no violation of United States v. Wade, supra.” Inasmuch as the court, in the instant case, followed the dictates of Thompson, supra, in conducting an Evidentiary Hearing to determine whether or not, in fact, the in-court identification had an independent basis other than the extra-judicial viewing, we find that the court did not commit error in its ruling on the admissibility of the in-court identification by the witness Crawley.

1957Hence the court did not commit error in instructing the jury as hereinbefore set forth.” We have given consideration to the various authorities cited by defendant, including from this court Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382 , 69 P.2d 398 ; Johnson v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 16 , 99 P. 1022 ; Lockhart v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 582 , 139 P. 1158 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 276 P.2d 937 , and Lac Coarce v. State, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1113 , but by reason of the factual differences, do not find them applicable The petition for rehearing is denied, and mandate is ordered issued forthwith.

1957Hence the court did not commit error in instructing the jury as hereinbefore set forth.” We have given consideration to the various authorities cited by defendant, including from this court Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382 , 69 P.2d 398 ; Johnson v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 16 , 99 P. 1022 ; Lockhart v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 582 , 139 P. 1158 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 276 P.2d 937 , and Lac Coarce v. State, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1113 , but by reason of the factual differences, do not find them applicable The petition for rehearing is denied, and mandate is ordered issued forthwith.

1957Hence the court did not commit error in instructing the jury as hereinbefore set forth.” We have given consideration to the various authorities cited by defendant, including from this court Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382 , 69 P.2d 398 ; Johnson v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 16 , 99 P. 1022 ; Lockhart v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 582 , 139 P. 1158 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 276 P.2d 937 , and Lac Coarce v. State, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1113 , but by reason of the factual differences, do not find them applicable The petition for rehearing is denied, and mandate is ordered issued forthwith.

1957Hence the court did not commit error in instructing the jury as hereinbefore set forth.” We have given consideration to the various authorities cited by defendant, including from this court Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382 , 69 P.2d 398 ; Johnson v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 16 , 99 P. 1022 ; Lockhart v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 582 , 139 P. 1158 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 276 P.2d 937 , and Lac Coarce v. State, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1113 , but by reason of the factual differences, do not find them applicable The petition for rehearing is denied, and mandate is ordered issued forthwith.

1957Hence the court did not commit error in instructing the jury as hereinbefore set forth.” We have given consideration to the various authorities cited by defendant, including from this court Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382 , 69 P.2d 398 ; Johnson v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 16 , 99 P. 1022 ; Lockhart v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 582 , 139 P. 1158 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 276 P.2d 937 , and Lac Coarce v. State, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1113 , but by reason of the factual differences, do not find them applicable The petition for rehearing is denied, and mandate is ordered issued forthwith.

1957Hence the court did not commit error in instructing the jury as hereinbefore set forth.” We have given consideration to the various authorities cited by defendant, including from this court Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382 , 69 P.2d 398 ; Johnson v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 16 , 99 P. 1022 ; Lockhart v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 582 , 139 P. 1158 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 276 P.2d 937 , and Lac Coarce v. State, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1113 , but by reason of the factual differences, do not find them applicable The petition for rehearing is denied, and mandate is ordered issued forthwith.

1957Hence the court did not commit error in instructing the jury as hereinbefore set forth.” We have given consideration to the various authorities cited by defendant, including from this court Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382 , 69 P.2d 398 ; Johnson v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 16 , 99 P. 1022 ; Lockhart v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 582 , 139 P. 1158 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 276 P.2d 937 , and Lac Coarce v. State, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1113 , but by reason of the factual differences, do not find them applicable The petition for rehearing is denied, and mandate is ordered issued forthwith.

1957Hence the court did not commit error in instructing the jury as hereinbefore set forth.” We have given consideration to the various authorities cited by defendant, including from this court Stanley v. State, 61 Okl.Cr. 382 , 69 P.2d 398 ; Johnson v. United States, 2 Okl.Cr. 16 , 99 P. 1022 ; Lockhart v. State, 10 Okl.Cr. 582 , 139 P. 1158 ; Smith v. State, Okl.Cr., 276 P.2d 937 , and Lac Coarce v. State, Okl.Cr., 309 P.2d 1113 , but by reason of the factual differences, do not find them applicable The petition for rehearing is denied, and mandate is ordered issued forthwith.

1956Held, that, under section 924 Rev.Laws 1910, and likewise under the general law, such agreement is void, and the court did not commit error in directing a verdict for defendant.” In the case of Brewer v. Ewart, 210 Ala. 292 , 97 So. 910 , a situation was involved which, in many respects, was analogous to that in the instant case.

1956Held, that, under section 924 Rev.Laws 1910, and likewise under the general law, such agreement is void, and the court did not commit error in directing a verdict for defendant.” In the case of Brewer v. Ewart, 210 Ala. 292 , 97 So. 910 , a situation was involved which, in many respects, was analogous to that in the instant case.

1939It is urged by defendant in error that the case of Eastern Torpedo of Ohio Company v. Shelts, 121 Okla. 129 , 247 P. 974 , is com trolling.

1939It is urged by defendant in error that the case of Eastern Torpedo of Ohio Company v. Shelts, 121 Okla. 129 , 247 P. 974 , is com trolling.

1939Pratt v. Hancock (1926) 117 Okla. 300 , 246 P. 220 .

1939Pratt v. Hancock (1926) 117 Okla. 300 , 246 P. 220 .

1930Martin v. State, 35 Okla.

1930This testimony is denied by the conductor, but from a careful examination of the record, we are of the opinion there was sufficient evidence in the record to submit the case to the jury upon the issue that the negligence of the defendant was the direct and proximate cause of the death of Ben Floyd, and that the court did not commit error in submitting the case to the jury for its determination. -“The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain-a judgment will be determined in the light of the evidence tending- to support same, together with every reasonable inference deducible therefrom, rejecting-

1930This testimony is denied by the conductor, but from a careful examination of the record, we are of the opinion there was sufficient evidence in the record to submit the case to the jury upon the issue that the negligence of the defendant was the direct and proximate cause of the death of Ben Floyd, and that the court did not commit error in submitting the case to the jury for its determination. -“The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain-a judgment will be determined in the light of the evidence tending- to support same, together with every reasonable inference deducible therefrom, rejecting-

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1929Long v. Woodman, 58 Me. 49 ; Williamson v. Holt, 147 N. C. 515 , 61 S. E. 384 ; Warner v. Benjamin (Wis.) 62 N. W. 179 ; First National Bank v. Swan (Wyo.) 23 Pac. 743 .” A somewhat similar holding will be found in the case of Myers v. Chamness, 114 Okla. 220 , 2145 Pac. 879 ; Davie et ux. v. Godwin-Barclay Co., 120 Okla. 274 , 251 Pac. 1042 ; Rock v. Fisher, 115 Okla. 53 , 241 Pac. 496 .

1926Fourth: The demurrer by the defendant to the reply of the plaintiff.” This section of the statute was adopted from the state of Kansas, and in Continental Insurance Co. v. Pearce, 39 Kan. 396 , the Supreme) Court of Kansas in construing this section said: “The allegations of any appointment or authority, appearing as new matter in a reply, shall be deemed to be controverted by the adverse party as upon direct denial, verified by the affidavit of the party, his agent or attorney without the filing of any pleading.” We are therefore of the opinion, and so held, that under the state of the pleadi

1925Defendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to prove injuries of miscarriage, on the ground that there was no positive proof, except the testimony of plaintiff herself, and her testimony, not being of export and scientific value, toasmot sufficient, citing the following cases; Willett v. Johnson, 13 Okla. 563 , 76 Pac. 174 ; Atchison.

1925Defendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to prove injuries of miscarriage, on the ground that there was no positive proof, except the testimony of plaintiff herself, and her testimony, not being of export and scientific value, toasmot sufficient, citing the following cases; Willett v. Johnson, 13 Okla. 563 , 76 Pac. 174 ; Atchison.

1922The defendant next complains that the plaintiff is limited to the sum of $85.35 as damages as the pro rata rental price of said film, under the latter part of the 4th paragraph of said contract, which reads as follows : “In no event shall the distributor be liable to damages in excess of the pro rata rental price of such film for such time as it could not be used.” It cites in support of this proposition the ease of McAlester v. Williams, 77 Okla. 65 , 186 Pac. 461 .

1922The defendant next complains that the plaintiff is limited to the sum of $85.35 as damages as the pro rata rental price of said film, under the latter part of the 4th paragraph of said contract, which reads as follows : “In no event shall the distributor be liable to damages in excess of the pro rata rental price of such film for such time as it could not be used.” It cites in support of this proposition the ease of McAlester v. Williams, 77 Okla. 65 , 186 Pac. 461 .

1919The case of Frazier v. Murphy, et al., 122 Cal. 91 , 65 Pac. 326 , cited by defendant, is in keeping with the foregoing statement.

1918In Teague v. State, 13 Okla.

1916Anderson et al., 19 Okla. 367 , 91 Pac. 906 , it is held: “The district court is onl5r authorized to grant a new trial for the causes, and in the ■manner set forth in the statute, and it is manifest and material error to grant a new trial when the complaining party is unable to procure any one who can transcribe a deceased stenographer’s notes of the trial.” We are of the opinion that the court did not commit error in its refusal to set aside the judgment rendered and to grant a new trial, and that this cause should be affirmed, By the Court: It is so ordered.

1916Anderson et al., 19 Okla. 367 , 91 Pac. 906 , it is held: “The district court is onl5r authorized to grant a new trial for the causes, and in the ■manner set forth in the statute, and it is manifest and material error to grant a new trial when the complaining party is unable to procure any one who can transcribe a deceased stenographer’s notes of the trial.” We are of the opinion that the court did not commit error in its refusal to set aside the judgment rendered and to grant a new trial, and that this cause should be affirmed, By the Court: It is so ordered.

1916In Lowe v. City of Guthrie, 4 Okla. 287 , 44 Pac. 198 , it is said: “Sureties on an official bond are only answerable for the acts of their principal while engaged in some duty imposed by law, or for an omission to perform such duty.” We are therefore of the opinion that the bond here sued on was not liable for the act of the township board in purchasing the property which it illegally did, and that the court did not commit error in sustaining a demurrer to the petition.

1916In Lowe v. City of Guthrie, 4 Okla. 287 , 44 Pac. 198 , it is said: “Sureties on an official bond are only answerable for the acts of their principal while engaged in some duty imposed by law, or for an omission to perform such duty.” We are therefore of the opinion that the bond here sued on was not liable for the act of the township board in purchasing the property which it illegally did, and that the court did not commit error in sustaining a demurrer to the petition.