language used instruction in Oklahoma

1947Davis v. State, 16 Okla.

1937Davis v. State, 16 Okla.

1947Cr. 169 , 216 P. 947 , at page 948: “ ‘Particular emphasis is placed on objections to the language used in instruction No. 17, because of an omission to use, at two or three places in the instruction, the words, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The question of reasonable doubt was clearly treated and stressed in other instructions, and an instruction will not be held erroneous for a failure to repeat and reiterate, over and over again, the term “beyond a reasonable doubt” when it appeal’s that in that and other paragraphs of the instructions the court has made it clear to the jury that every issue

1937Cr. 169 , 216 Pac. 947, 948 , the court says: “Particular emphasis is placed on objections to the language used in instruction No. 17, because of an omission to use, at two or three places in the instruction, the words ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The question of reasonable doubt was clearly treated and stressed in other instructions, and an instruction will not be held erroneous for a failure to repeat and reiterate, over and over again, the term ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ when it appears that in that and other paragraphs of the instructions the court has made it clear to the jury that every

1958Co. v. Goforth, 193 Okl. 314 , 143 P.2d 154, 155 , this court held: “The question whether the amount stipulated to be paid upon failure of performance is to be treated as liquidated damages, or as a penalty, is, in its last analysis, a question of law for the court, to be determined from the language and subject matter of the contract, the evident intent of the parties, and all the facts and circumstances under which the contract was made.” Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and the language used in this clause of said contract, we are of the *19 opinion, and so hold that the tr

1958Co. v. Goforth, 193 Okl. 314 , 143 P.2d 154, 155 , this court held: “The question whether the amount stipulated to be paid upon failure of performance is to be treated as liquidated damages, or as a penalty, is, in its last analysis, a question of law for the court, to be determined from the language and subject matter of the contract, the evident intent of the parties, and all the facts and circumstances under which the contract was made.” Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and the language used in this clause of said contract, we are of the *19 opinion, and so hold that the tr

1939As the basis for this argument plaintiff relies upon Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Rogers, 46 Okla. 67 , 148 P. 161 , in which this court stated novation must be shown “by a clear preponderance of the evidence.” In the Rogers Case, supra, this court used the following language: “The entire weight of authority is to the effect that novation is never presumed, but the contract must be clearly xoroven.” Plaintiff urges that since this court has declared, in accord with the weight of authority, novation must be “clearly proven,” a higher degree of proof is required than a fair preponderance of the evidence

1939As the basis for this argument plaintiff relies upon Gaar, Scott & Co. v. Rogers, 46 Okla. 67 , 148 P. 161 , in which this court stated novation must be shown “by a clear preponderance of the evidence.” In the Rogers Case, supra, this court used the following language: “The entire weight of authority is to the effect that novation is never presumed, but the contract must be clearly xoroven.” Plaintiff urges that since this court has declared, in accord with the weight of authority, novation must be “clearly proven,” a higher degree of proof is required than a fair preponderance of the evidence

1906If the suit is brought by the party, there can be no fixed measure of compensation for the pain and anguish of body and mind, nor for the loss of time and care in business, or the permanent injury to health and body.” In the case of The City of Panama, 101 U. S., 453 , this doctrine was reiterated and approved by the court.