FREEMAN v. FARMERS' & MERCHANTS' BANK

FREEMAN v. FARMERS' & MERCHANTS' BANK
1915 OK 747
152 P. 105
51 Okla. 588
Case Number: 5416
Decided: 10/05/1915
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

FREEMAN et al.
v.
FARMERS' & MERCHANTS' BANK.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Discretionary Ruling--Order Granting New Trial. The discretion of the trial court in granting a new trial is so broad that its action in so doing will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the record shows clearly that the court has erred in the decision of some clear and unmixed question of law, and that the order granting the new trial is based on such erroneous view of the law.

E. O. Clark, for plaintiffs in error.
John W. Frederick, for defendant in error.

DEVEREUX, C.

¶1 It will be noted that the trial court gave no reason for its action in granting a new trial,, and it might have been granted on any of the grounds set out in the motion. In Citizens' State Bank of Lawton v. Chattanooga State Bank, 23 Okla. 767, 101 P. 1118, it is said:

"There is some conflict in the evidence in this record, and it is not clear upon what ground the new trial was granted. The granting of a new trial being so much within the discretion of the trial court, this court will not reverse an order of such court granting a new trial, unless error is clearly established in respect to some pure, simple, and unmixed question of law." And the same point is decided in Linderman v. Nolan, 16 Okla. 352, 83 P. 796; Exchange Bank of Wewoka v. Bailey, 29 Okla. 246, 116 P. 812, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1032; National Refrigerator & Butchers' Supply Co. v. Elsing, 29 Okla. 334, 116 P. 790; Rogers v. Quabner, 41 Okla. 107, 137 P. 361.

¶2 The record in this case does not show that in granting the new trial, the court erred in respect to some pure, simple, and unmixed question of law. We therefore recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

¶3 By the Court: It is so ordered.