GEORGE O. BAIRD, JR.
v.
MARK V. MARLOWE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the jury's answers were supported by substantial evidence and the trial judge committed no prejudicial error.
Plaintiff Baird sued defendant Marlowe for breach of contract related to an oil-and-gas-lease business. The jury found Baird performed his duties unde…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This action for damages was brought by Baird against Marlowe for breach of contract relating to the operation of an oil-and-gas-lease business. There was a jury trial, at which the case was submitted to the jury upon interrogatories. These were answered by the jury favorably to the contention of the plaintiffappellee.
The jury found that the appellee, Baird, had completed and performed the duties incumbent upon him as required by the contract. As a result of the jury’s findings, the United States District Court entered judgment in favor of the appellee for the total sum of $14,192.60, constituting $10,000 due for services rendered pursuant to the contract and the balance of the judgment being for interest and expenses.
The court dismissed a counter-claim of the defendant Marlowe against plaintiff Baird.
Upon review of the record, we find the answers of the jury to the interrogatories to be supported by substantial evidence; and that the trial judge, Honorable H. Church Ford, properly applied the pertinent law and committed no prejudicial error in the trial of the case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norene R. O'Dell v. United States & Jack Ruhter in Bankr., 326 F.2d 451 (10th Cir. 1964)
-
The First State Bank & Tr. Co. of Guthrie v. Sand Springs State Bank OF Sand Springs, 528 F.2d 350 (10th Cir. 1976)
-
Claybrook Drilling Co. v. Divanco, Inc., 336 F.2d 697 (10th Cir. 1964)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence