
    HARRIS v. GRIMSTEAD et al.
    No 15437
    Opinion Filed June 30, 1925.
    1. Appeal and Error — Questions of Fact— Conclusiveness of Verdict.
    A judgment of the court based upon the verdict of a jury, in a law action, will not be reversed on appeal if there is any competent evidence which reasonably tends to support the verdict of the jury.
    2. Same — Judgment Sustained.
    Record examined; held, to be sufficient to support verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
    (Syllabus by Stephenson C.)
    So . ft’44 *°°.£ V'O CO ,-sCO . oo Tgw * £ f-i rg . .yi a (4 k! . p . .o nOm T«“§ ¿tv, CO . . <N ft P«
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4
    Error from District Court, Osage County; Jesse J. Worten, Judge.
    Action by E. E. Grimstead and Eugene E. Scott, a partnership, against Pat H. Harris for debt. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    Ben Franklin, for plaintiff in error.
    Wm. S. Hamilton and Edw. C. Gross, for defendants in error.
   Opinion toy

STEPHENSON, C.

E. E. Grimstead and Eugene F. Scott, a partnership, engaged in the practice of law, commenced their action against Pat H. Harris, (to recover for legal services rendered for the defendant. The trial of the cause resulted in judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant has appealed the cause to this court and assigns as error that the verdict and judgment are contrary to the law and the evidence.

It would serve no useful purpose to detail the evidence given in the trial of the cause by the respective parties. It is sufficient to say that there is ample competent evidence 'to support the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiffs. Young v. Eaton, 82 Okla. 106, 198 Pac. 857.

It is recommended that the judgment, be affirmed.

By ithe Court: It is so ordered.  