DECKER v. ALEXANDER.

DECKER v. ALEXANDER.
1932 OK 626
14 P.2d 379
159 Okla. 115
Case Number: 21298
Decided: 09/20/1932
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

DECKER
v.
ALEXANDER.

Syllabus

¶0 Contracts -- Judgment for Damages for Breach of Building Contract Against Owner Sustained.
Complaint is made that the judgment was not supported by the evidence. An examination of the evidence shows it to be sufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. Cause is accordingly affirmed.

Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; W. G. Long, Assigned Judge.

Action by L. C. Alexander against Mike Decker. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. R. Rittenhouse, for plaintiff in error.
W. E. Wells and Erwin & Erwin, for defendant in error.

KORNEGAY, J.

¶1 This cause originated in a justice of the peace court in Lincoln county. It resulted in the lower court in a judgment for the plaintiff below, who is now the defendant in error, L. C. Alexander, the case being tried by the justice and the amount of the recovery being $ 156.

¶2 The plaintiff in error appealed to the district court, and the case was there tried anew and was submitted to a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of the defendant in error, the plaintiff below, followed by a judgment for $ 200 and costs. Several objections were made as the case progressed, and motion for new trial was fled and overruled, and proceeding in error brought to this court.

¶3 Typewritten brief has been filed by plaintiff in error in which an abstract of the testimony and proceedings is set out, and there are various assignments of error, but the only matter argued is that the evidence did not warrant the verdict and judgment, and the argument is made that the plaintiff in error and defendant in error did not reach an agreement upon the question of building the house, that was the subject-matter of the contract, the breach of which was complained of.

¶4 An examination of the entire record convinces us that by far the preponderance of the evidence showed that each of the parties thoroughly understood that they had arrived at the making of a contract for the building of a house. It is further shown in the evidence that the oral contract was witnessed by two witnesses, who corroborate the plaintiff below as to the agreement. Taking the testimony of the defendant, and viewing it from all four corners, his own testimony comes very near showing that he recognized at all times that he had made an agreement that was sufficiently definite in terms to bind the parties, and that he also knew that the defendant in error had partly performed the work and had gone to expense and spent time about the planning of the work, and that later he thought he could get it done cheaper and repudiated his contract.