JOHNSON v. MCDONALD

JOHNSON v. MCDONALD
1934 OK 743
39 P.2d 150
170 Okla. 117
Case Number: 21895
Decided: 12/18/1934
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

JOHNSON
v.
MCDONALD et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. Fraud--Definition of Fraud.
Fraud is a generic term, which embraces all the multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise and are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or by the suppression of the truth. No definite and invariable rule can be laid down as a general proposition defining fraud, as it includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated.
2. Same--Fraud as Question of Fact.
When fraud is properly alleged by one party and denied by the other, and there is any evidence pertaining thereto, the question is one of fact to be determined by a jury under proper instructions.
3. Appeal and Error--Review--Sufficiency of Evidence in Law Action Tried to Court.
The judgment of a trial court in a law action tried without a jury will not be disturbed by this court as to a question of fact, if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the same.

Appeal from District Court, Hughes County; J. J. Smith, Judge.

Action by C. M. Johnson against Nolan McDonald and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. W. Pryor and Hugh M. Sandlin, for plaintiff in error.
W. T. Anglin and Alfred Stevenson, for defendants in error.

ANDREWS, J.

¶1 The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants to recover a judgment for an alleged balance on a promissory note. The defense was misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement leading up to the execution thereof. The cause was tried to the court. Judgment was rendered for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.

¶2 The questions presented to this court for determination are: Was fraud sufficiently alleged and proven, and was there a sufficient restoration or offer to restore? Those were questions of fact upon which the court passed, and there being competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the judgment of the trial court in a law action tried without a jury, the judgment must be and is affirmed.