
    NOWLAN v. HARNER OIL CO. et al.
    No. 16602
    Opinion Filed May 25, 1926.
    1. Appeal and Error — Review—Sufficiency of Evidence to Support Verdict.
    The judgment of a court, based upon the verdict of a jury, in' al law action, will neft ■be reversed on appeal, if there is any competent evidence which reasonably tends to support the verdict of the- jury.
    2. Same — Recovery on Note Sustained.
    Record examined; held, sufficient to support judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
    (Syllabus by Stephenson, C.)
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4.
    Error from Districc Court, Rogers County; O. H. Baskin, Judge.
    Action by iSam P. Wilkérson et al. against Harner Oil Go. et al. on a negotiable note. Judgment for plaintiffs, and Harry H. Now-lan brings error.
    Affirmed.
    E. M. Connor, i<Ar plaintiff in error.
    Jennings, Hall & Battenfield, for defendants in error.
   Opinion by

STEPHEN SON, O.

Sam P. Wilkerso-n et al. commenced their action a-g'alinst Harner Oil 'Company et al. to< recover for debt on a non-negotiable note. The trial of the cause resulted in judgment for the plaintiffs. Harry H. Nowlan perfected his appeal for review of the proceedings had in obtaining the judgment. The mlain error eotaiplained about is that the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their petition to show that the note was executed on May 1, 1920, instead of January 1, 1920. The record does not indicate that the defendants were misled to their prejudice, nor does the record show a proper m-otlon for a continuance in order to enable the defendants to meet th© amendment. The court did not commit error in this respect. Kingfisher Mill & Elevator Co. v. Westbrook et al., 79 Okla. 190, 192 Pac. 211.

There is sufficient competent evidence to support the verdict in favor o£ Hie ixlaintiffs. Young v. Eaton, 82 Okla. 166, 198 Pac. 857.

Note See undwr (1) 4 853 S 2 R. C L Supp 90 5 R Supp p . (2) 4 C J. p. 1 13 & 3122

The judgment is affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  