Holloway v. Dunham, 170 U.S. 615 (1898)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 170 U.S. 614, click here.
Holloway v. Dunham
No. 247
Argued May 4, 1898
Decided May 28, 1898
170 U.S. 615
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA
Syllabus
On an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of a territory, the findings of fact are conclusive upon this Court.
One general exception to thirteen different instructions cannot be considered sufficient when each instruction consists of different propositions of law and fact and many of them are clearly correct.
This action was brought in a District Court of the Territory of Oklahoma to recover the value of certain goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs (defendants in error here) to the defendant below, amounting to the sum of $5,004.58, the sales having been made between the 1st of November, 1890, and the 10th of March, 1891, and the defendant at the time of the sales being a resident of Fort Worth, in the State of Texas. At the time of the commencement of the action, plaintiffs also commenced attachment proceedings against the defendant on the ground that he was at that time a nonresident of the Territory of Oklahoma and also on the ground that he was about to sell, convey, and otherwise dispose of his property subject to execution, with a fraudulent intent to cheat, hinder, and delay his creditors.
The defendant filed an answer denying the plaintiffs’ complaint, and also one denying each and every material allegation contained in the plaintiffs’ petition and affidavits for an attachment.
Under the practice in Oklahoma, there were two issues thus made -- one in regard to the existence and amount of defendant’s indebtedness to the plaintiffs and the other as to the facts upon which the attachment could be sustained. These two separate issues came on for trial on the 16th of June, 1892, before the district court and a jury, and after the evidence was in, the court submitted to the jury the two issues, and directed a separate verdict to be returned in regard to each issue. The jury returned the following verdicts:
We, the jury, duly impaneled and sworn in the above case, find for the plaintiffs on the attachment issue. Eugene Walker, Foreman.
We, the jury, duly impaneled and sworn in the above-entitled case, find for the plaintiffs, and assess their damages at $5,434.61. Eugene Walker, Foreman.
At the request of the defendant, the court also submitted to the jury the following questions in writing:
(1) Was J. R. Holloway on the 31st day of October, 1891, about to sell and convey, or otherwise dispose of, his property subject to execution, with the intent to cheat, hinder, and delay his creditors?
(2) Was J. R. Holloway on the 31st day of October, 1891, a nonresident of Oklahoma territory?
The jury returned an affirmative answer to each question. Judgment was entered for the amount of the verdict.
The defendant appealed to the supreme court of the territory, where the judgment was affirmed, and thereupon he obtained a writ of error from this Court, and the record is now here for review.