SNEED v. YARBROUGH

Annotate this Case

SNEED v. YARBROUGH
1926 OK 256
253 P. 40
123 Okla. 17
Case Number: 15758
Decided: 03/16/1926
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

SNEED
v.
YARBROUGH.

Syllabus.

¶0 1. New Trial--Discretion of Trial Court.
Trial courts are invested with broad discretion in the granting of new trials. The trial judge has heard all the evidence, observed the manner and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, their lack of interest or concern in the outcome of the trial, and is in a better position to determine whether substantial justice has been reached in the course of the trial, than this court may judge upon the record.
2. Appeal and Error--Discretion of Trial Court--Grant of New Trial.
Therefore, the action of the trial court in granting a motion for new trial will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the court committed error upon a pure and unmixed question of law.
3. Same--Grant of New Trial Sustained.
Record examined; held, to be sufficient to support judgment.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 4.

Error from District Court, Creek County; Fred A. Speakman, Judge.

Action by Charles A. Sneed, Jr., against Thomas Yarbrough for possession of real estate. Judgment for plaintiff. New trial granted for the defendant, and plaintiff brings error. AffirmedA. L. Emery, for plaintiff in error.

Thrift & Davenport, for defendant in error.

STEPHENSON, C.

¶1 The plaintiff was enrolled as a citizen of the Creek Nation of Indians, and received his allotment of land. A guardian was appointed for the person and estate of the plaintiff, who sold the allotment of the plaintiff through the county court of Okmulgee county, in the year 1913. The plaintiff commenced his action against the defendant for recovery of the possession of the land in 1923. The latter alleged in his petition that his guardian caused the sale of the land through the county court after he had attained his majority, and that the county court was without jurisdiction to order the sale. The defendant answered by way of general denial, and set up deeds executed by the plaintiff to the defendant, after the probate sale, to support his right of possession. It was the contention of the plaintiff that the deeds were procured by fraud and were void. The defendant relies on certain statutes of limitation to bar plaintiff's right of recovery. It was the further contention of the plaintiff that he protested against the sale of the land through the county court; that the sale was procured through the county court by fraud and collusion between the guardian and purchaser. The trial of the cause resulted in judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant filed motion for new trial, which was overruled. The defendant later filed a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The court sustained the motion and granted a new trial.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.