Lamb v. Bennett

MeNEILL, J. This action was filed in tbe justice of tbe peace court by J. W. Bennett to collect $64.50 from J. A. Lamb for commission for services as a broker for sale of an oil rig for $1,290. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the justice court, an appeal was taken to tbe district court, where a jury was waived and judgment again rendered for plaintiff for said amount. From said judgment, an appeal is prosecuted to this court. There were only two witnesses testified in tbe case, plaintiff and defendant. Tbe assignments of error are general, and raise but one question, tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence to support the judgment. Plaintiff testified, in substance, that be was engaged a part of tbe time in buying and selling leases as a broker and in tbe brokerage business, and defendant requested him to see if be could find some one to purchase an oil rig; that be wanted $1,290 for tbe same; that plaintiff secured a Mr. Richards from Dallas, Texas, took him out on two different occasions and showed him tbe rig, paid tbe expenses of showing the rig to Mr. Richards, called up the defendant and advised him that Mr. Richards would call and see about the rig. that Mr. Richards went to Mr. Lamb and purchased tbe rig for $1,290. As to whether Mr. Lamb knew plaintiff was in tbe brokerage business, tbe plaintiff testified .as follows: “Ob, he Knew I was in it; be knew I was getting leases for Stenier, and be knew I sold leases at the hotel several times. The time be bad the Ward stuff be told me if I would get a sale through for that be would give me a commission; that was lung before he thought about this rig.” Tbe defendant admitted the sale of tbe rig to Mr. Richards for $1,290. This case is controlled by a long line of decisions announcing the following principle: “When a jury is waived, and issues, -both of law and fact, are submitted to tbe trial court, its findings will not be reviewed by this court, if the evidence reasonably tends to support the same.” Scott v. Iman, 74 Oklahoma, 176 Pac. 81. It is sufficient to say that tbe testimony of tbe plaintiff is sufficient to support a judgment in bis favor. There appears to be no merit in this appeal; neither tbe question of law presented nor the amount involved. Tbe judgment of tbe trial court is therefore affirmed. HARRISON, O. X, and PITCHFORD; ELTING, and NICHOLSON, JX, concur.