salutary rule in Oklahoma

1939Cr. 44 , 236 P. 914 , in the body of the opinion the court stated: “The salutary rule, as has frequently been announced by this court, is that the jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and where there is evidence from which the jury may reasonably and logically draw the conclusion of the defendant’s guilt, although the evidence is conflicting, the verdict will not be disturbed.

1938Cr. 44 , 236 P. 914 , in the body of the opinion the court said: “The salutary rule, as has frequently been announced by this court, is that the jury are the exclusive judges of the credibility of the witnesses, and where there is evidence from which the jury may reasonably and logically draw the conclusion of the defendant’s guilt, although the evidence is conflicting, the verdict will not be disturbed.

1935The salutary rule so widely recognized and enforced should a fortiori find lodgment in the courts of this state, where the parties to the marriage relations are all full-blood Indians, unused and unaccustomed to the laws of the whites, and to whom written laws governing their domestic relations were innovations at the time.” Chancey v. Whinnery, 47 Okla. 272 , 147 P. 1036 -38; Lewis v. Lewis, 60 Okla. 60 , 158 P. 368 ; Bishop on Marriage, Divorce & Separation (1st Ed.) vol. 1, sec. 1145; Boulden v. McIntire (Ind.) 21 N. E. 445 ; Coal Run Coal Co. v. Jones (Ill.) 8 N. E. 865 ; Nixon v. Wichita

1916In the well-considered case of Chancey v. Whinnery, 47 Okla. 272 , 147 Pac. 1036 , wherein the validity of an Indian custom marriage was involved, it was said by Mr. Justice Sharp, speaking for the court: “The authorities, with very general accord, are to the effect that, when a marriage in fact has been shown, the law raises a presumption that it is valid, casting the burden on him who questions it to establish its invalidity.

1935The salutary rule so widely recognized and enforced should a fortiori find lodgment in the courts of this state, where the parties to the marriage relations are all full-blood Indians, unused and unaccustomed to the laws of the whites, and to whom written laws governing their domestic relations were innovations at the time.” Chancey v. Whinnery, 47 Okla. 272 , 147 P. 1036 -38; Lewis v. Lewis, 60 Okla. 60 , 158 P. 368 ; Bishop on Marriage, Divorce & Separation (1st Ed.) vol. 1, sec. 1145; Boulden v. McIntire (Ind.) 21 N. E. 445 ; Coal Run Coal Co. v. Jones (Ill.) 8 N. E. 865 ; Nixon v. Wichita

1916In the well-considered case of Chancey v. Whinnery, 47 Okla. 272 , 147 Pac. 1036 , wherein the validity of an Indian custom marriage was involved, it was said by Mr. Justice Sharp, speaking for the court: “The authorities, with very general accord, are to the effect that, when a marriage in fact has been shown, the law raises a presumption that it is valid, casting the burden on him who questions it to establish its invalidity.

1911In Griffin v. Tucker, County Atty., 102 Tex. 420 , 118 S. W. 635 , the Supreme Court of Texas said: ‘Ordinarily this court follows the construction given to penal statutes by the Court of Criminal Appeals, since the enforcement of such statutes must be in accordance with such construction; but the decisions of questions coming within the scope of cases of contested elections is intrusted to- the civil courts, and must be in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions/ This seems to be a salutary rule.” In Flood v. State, 27 Okla. 752 , 113 Pac. 914 , recently decided by this co-urt

1911In Griffin v. Tucker, County Atty., 102 Tex. 420 , 118 S. W. 635 , the Supreme Court of Texas said: ‘Ordinarily this court follows the construction given to penal statutes by the Court of Criminal Appeals, since the enforcement of such statutes must be in accordance with such construction; but the decisions of questions coming within the scope of cases of contested elections is intrusted to- the civil courts, and must be in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions/ This seems to be a salutary rule.” In Flood v. State, 27 Okla. 752 , 113 Pac. 914 , recently decided by this co-urt

1960In the case of Ponkilla v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 31, 35 , 99 P.2d 910 , 912: “The Bill of Rights in our constitution and our statutes on criminal prop cedure both declare the salutary rule of the common law that in a criminal prosecution the accused shall be inr formed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and that the indictment or information must be direct and certain, that is, that it must set forth the special manner of the whole fact so that it can be clearly seen what particular offense, and not merely what nature of offense, is intended to be charged.” It may be readily ob

1960In the case of Ponkilla v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 31, 35 , 99 P.2d 910 , 912: “The Bill of Rights in our constitution and our statutes on criminal prop cedure both declare the salutary rule of the common law that in a criminal prosecution the accused shall be inr formed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and that the indictment or information must be direct and certain, that is, that it must set forth the special manner of the whole fact so that it can be clearly seen what particular offense, and not merely what nature of offense, is intended to be charged.” It may be readily ob

1955It may be added that the doctrine of election, as generally described in the foregoing paragraphs, applies to all instruments of donation,— to deeds, settlements, and the like, as well as , to wills, — although the cases involving it have most frequently arisen under wills.” And in Harber v. Harber, 158 Ga. 274 , 123 S.E. 114, 115 , 33 A.L.R. 598 , the court defines the doctrine of election as follows: “The doctrine of election is based upon the salutary principle, that ‘he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument, conforming to all its provisi

1955It may be added that the doctrine of election, as generally described in the foregoing paragraphs, applies to all instruments of donation,— to deeds, settlements, and the like, as well as , to wills, — although the cases involving it have most frequently arisen under wills.” And in Harber v. Harber, 158 Ga. 274 , 123 S.E. 114, 115 , 33 A.L.R. 598 , the court defines the doctrine of election as follows: “The doctrine of election is based upon the salutary principle, that ‘he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will must adopt the whole contents of the instrument, conforming to all its provisi

1954A salutary warning as to such practice was given in Loftin v. Wilson, supra, wherein it was said: “A comparison with other cases is sometimes fraught with danger because, of course, each case is different and must of necessity be measured in the light of the circumstances peculiar to it.

1951I think the rule enunciated in Oldfield v. Gypsy Oil & Gas Co., 123 Okla. 293 , 252 P. 298 ; Brazell v. Soucek, 130 Okla. 204 , 266 P. 442 ; Brunson Carter Oil Co., 259 F. 656 , and Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 263 F. 935 , is a salutary rule, and, under the facts, this case is well within the rule.

1951I think the rule enunciated in Oldfield v. Gypsy Oil & Gas Co., 123 Okla. 293 , 252 P. 298 ; Brazell v. Soucek, 130 Okla. 204 , 266 P. 442 ; Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 259 F. 656 , and Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 263 F. 935 , is a salutary rule, and, under the facts, this case is well within the rule.

1951I think the rule enunciated in Oldfield v. Gypsy Oil & Gas Co., 123 Okla. 293 , 252 P. 298 ; Brazell v. Soucek, 130 Okla. 204 , 266 P. 442 ; Brunson Carter Oil Co., 259 F. 656 , and Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 263 F. 935 , is a salutary rule, and, under the facts, this case is well within the rule.

1951I think the rule enunciated in Oldfield v. Gypsy Oil & Gas Co., 123 Okla. 293 , 252 P. 298 ; Brazell v. Soucek, 130 Okla. 204 , 266 P. 442 ; Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 259 F. 656 , and Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 263 F. 935 , is a salutary rule, and, under the facts, this case is well within the rule.

1951I think the rule enunciated in Oldfield v. Gypsy Oil & Gas Co., 123 Okla. 293 , 252 P. 298 ; Brazell v. Soucek, 130 Okla. 204 , 266 P. 442 ; Brunson Carter Oil Co., 259 F. 656 , and Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 263 F. 935 , is a salutary rule, and, under the facts, this case is well within the rule.

1951I think the rule enunciated in Oldfield v. Gypsy Oil & Gas Co., 123 Okla. 293 , 252 P. 298 ; Brazell v. Soucek, 130 Okla. 204 , 266 P. 442 ; Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 259 F. 656 , and Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 263 F. 935 , is a salutary rule, and, under the facts, this case is well within the rule.

1951I think the rule enunciated in Oldfield v. Gypsy Oil & Gas Co., 123 Okla. 293 , 252 P. 298 ; Brazell v. Soucek, 130 Okla. 204 , 266 P. 442 ; Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 259 F. 656 , and Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 263 F. 935 , is a salutary rule, and, under the facts, this case is well within the rule.

1951I think the rule enunciated in Oldfield v. Gypsy Oil & Gas Co., 123 Okla. 293 , 252 P. 298 ; Brazell v. Soucek, 130 Okla. 204 , 266 P. 442 ; Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 259 F. 656 , and Brunson v. Carter Oil Co., 263 F. 935 , is a salutary rule, and, under the facts, this case is well within the rule.

1949S. A. §176 was adopted from Kansas, and that court in the early case of Albright v. Warkentin, 31 Kan. 442 , 2 P. 614 , in a very learned opinion laid down the basic reasons for the salutary rule subsequently followed by this court in the above cases.

1939Still, where there is a dearth of evidence and the guilt of an accused is not a logical deduction from the facts proven, the evidence is insufficient and the verdict will be set aside.” Thompson v. State, 40 Okla.

1937Kept within its proper limitations it is a salutary principle and reasonable, but given a latitudinous constructive interpretation it is unreasonable, and would work grave injustice.” In the case of State v. Sullivan, 34 Idaho, 68 , 199 P. 647, 650 , 17 A. L.

1937Kept within its proper limitations it is a salutary principle and reasonable, but given a latitudinous constructive interpretation it is unreasonable, and would work grave injustice.” In the case of State v. Sullivan, 34 Idaho, 68 , 199 P. 647, 650 , 17 A. L.

1937The salutary rule so widely recognized and enforced should a fortiori find lodgment in the courts of this state, where the parties to the marriage relations are all full-blood Indians, unused and unaccustomed to the laws of the whites, and to whom written laws governing their domestic relations were innovations at the time.” This rule was followed in Coleman v. James, 67 Okla. 112 , 169 P. 1064 , and in a number of other decisions.

1937The salutary rule so widely recognized and enforced should a fortiori find lodgment in the courts of this state, where the parties to the marriage relations are all full-blood Indians, unused and unaccustomed to the laws of the whites, and to whom written laws governing their domestic relations were innovations at the time.” This rule was followed in Coleman v. James, 67 Okla. 112 , 169 P. 1064 , and in a number of other decisions.

1936Even so, a salutary rule of construction is announced in Town of Grove v. Haskell, Governor, 31 Okla. 77 , 116 P. 805 , paragraph i of the syllabus, as follows: “When the literal enforcement of a statute would result in great inconvenience or lead to consequences which are absurd and which the Legislature cannot be held to have contemplated, the courts are bound to presume that such consequences were not intended, and to adopt a construction which shall promote the ends of justice, and avoid the absurdity.” The evidence here is undisputed that there was an appropriation of $101,011.93, and the

1936Even so, a salutary rule of construction is announced in Town of Grove v. Haskell, Governor, 31 Okla. 77 , 116 P. 805 , paragraph i of the syllabus, as follows: “When the literal enforcement of a statute would result in great inconvenience or lead to consequences which are absurd and which the Legislature cannot be held to have contemplated, the courts are bound to presume that such consequences were not intended, and to adopt a construction which shall promote the ends of justice, and avoid the absurdity.” The evidence here is undisputed that there was an appropriation of $101,011.93, and the

1935“The presumption in favor of matrimony is one of the strongest known to the law. * * * ‘The law presumes morality and not immorality; marriage and not concubinage, legitimacy and not bastardy.’ ” Teter v. Teter, 101 Ind. 129 .

1935The salutary rule so widely recognized and enforced should a fortiori find lodgment in the courts of this state, where the parties to the marriage relations are all full-blood Indians, unused and unaccustomed to the laws of the whites, and to whom written laws governing their domestic relations were innovations at the time.” Chancey v. Whinnery, 47 Okla. 272 , 147 P. 1036 -38; Lewis v. Lewis, 60 Okla. 60 , 158 P. 368 ; Bishop on Marriage, Divorce & Separation (1st Ed.) vol. 1, sec. 1145; Boulden v. McIntire (Ind.) 21 N. E. 445 ; Coal Run Coal Co. v. Jones (Ill.) 8 N. E. 865 ; Nixon v. Wichita

1935The salutary rule so widely recognized and enforced should a fortiori find lodgment in the courts of this state, where the parties to the marriage relations are all full-blood Indians, unused and unaccustomed to the laws of the whites, and to whom written laws governing their domestic relations were innovations at the time.” Chancey v. Whinnery, 47 Okla. 272 , 147 P. 1036 -38; Lewis v. Lewis, 60 Okla. 60 , 158 P. 368 ; Bishop on Marriage, Divorce & Separation (1st Ed.) vol. 1, sec. 1145; Boulden v. McIntire (Ind.) 21 N. E. 445 ; Coal Run Coal Co. v. Jones (Ill.) 8 N. E. 865 ; Nixon v. Wichita

1935The salutary rule so widely recognized and enforced should a fortiori find lodgment in the courts of this state, where the parties to the marriage relations are all full-blood Indians, unused and unaccustomed to the laws of the whites, and to whom written laws governing their domestic relations were innovations at the time.” Chancey v. Whinnery, 47 Okla. 272 , 147 P. 1036 -38; Lewis v. Lewis, 60 Okla. 60 , 158 P. 368 ; Bishop on Marriage, Divorce & Separation (1st Ed.) vol. 1, sec. 1145; Boulden v. McIntire (Ind.) 21 N. E. 445 ; Coal Run Coal Co. v. Jones (Ill.) 8 N. E. 865 ; Nixon v. Wichita

1931Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 Pac. 184 , the court states: “The public is greatly interested in the management,' control, and regulation of the banking business; banks are permitted to do business through the courtesy and permission cf law and subject to its provisions for the protection of the depositors, creditors, and stockholders.

1931Bank of Tulsa v. Boxley, 129 Okla. 159 , 264 Pac. 184 , the court states: “The public is greatly interested in the management,' control, and regulation of the banking business; banks are permitted to do business through the courtesy and permission cf law and subject to its provisions for the protection of the depositors, creditors, and stockholders.

1911In Griffin v. Tucker, County Atty., 102 Tex. 420 , 118 S. W. 635 , the Supreme Court of Texas said: ‘Ordinarily this court follows the construction given to penal statutes by the Court of Criminal Appeals, since the enforcement of such statutes must be in accordance with such construction; but the decisions of questions coming within the scope of cases of contested elections is intrusted to- the civil courts, and must be in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions/ This seems to be a salutary rule.” In Flood v. State, 27 Okla. 752 , 113 Pac. 914 , recently decided by this co-urt

1911In Ex parte Simmons, 4 Okla.

1910See, also, Ex parte Patman, 20 Okla. 846 , 95 Pac. 622 ; Ex parte Johnson, 1 Okla.

1902(White v. Ashton, 51 N. Y. 260 ; Bigelow, Estop. 437, 441; White v. Walker, 31 Ill. 422 ; Faxton v. Faxton, 28 Mich 159 .”) Section 822 of our Statutes of 1893, in relation to contracts, reads as follows: "The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral *584 negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter, which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument." This principle is not only in harmony with the provisions of our statute in relátion to contracts and in consonance with sound reason, but it is so clearly and

1902(White v. Ashton, 51 N. Y. 260 ; Bigelow, Estop. 437, 441; White v. Walker, 31 Ill. 422 ; Faxton v. Faxton, 28 Mich 159 .”) Section 822 of our Statutes of 1893, in relation to contracts, reads as follows: "The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral *584 negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter, which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument." This principle is not only in harmony with the provisions of our statute in relátion to contracts and in consonance with sound reason, but it is so clearly and

1897The salutary rule that every man is conclusively presumed to know the law is sometimes conducive of hardship in particular cases, and the hardship is no greater where the law imposes the duty to ascertain a fact.” This opinion was afterwards cited with approval in Com. v. Doodman, 97 Mass. 103, and in Com. v. Hattett, 103 Mass. 452 , and in the same state the principle announced has been held applicable to bigamy.