# James v. Southwestern Insurance Company

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · July 6, 1960 · 354 P.2d 408

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9792065

## Case

- **Full name:** Alfred JAMES, Plaintiff in Error, v. SOUTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation; National Automobile Theft Bureau, a National Association; M. L. Rear, James Dozier and Chester Stringer, Defendants in Error
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** July 6, 1960
- **Citations:** 354 P.2d 408; 1960 OK 164; 1960 Okla. LEXIS 421
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Welch
- **Judges:** Johnson, Welch, Davison, Blackbird, Jackson, Berry, Williams, Irwin
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9792065

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the issue of probable cause for an arrest was precluded based on findings from plaintiffs preliminary hearing, at which he was bound over for trial

## Opinion text

WELCH, Justice
(dissenting).
The rule is well settled that a demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence admits every fact which such evidence tends in the slightest degree to prove, with all evidence favor *413 able to defendant, the demurrant, eliminated from consideration, or considered as withdrawn for the purpose of passing upon such demurrer.
That rule has been stated and applied in many cases. I refer specifically to Buellesfeld v. Jones, 187 Okl. 596 , 105 P.2d 242 ; Davis v. Curry, 192 Okl. 32 , 133 P.2d 186 , and Duck v. Selected Investment Corporation, 196 Okl. 547 , 167 P.2d 54 .
Application of the rule of those decisions to this case demonstrate, as I view it, that the trial court in this case erred in sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence and that reversal is required here as in the three cited cases.
I am authorized to say that IRWIN, J., concurs in these dissenting views.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9792065. Public record. Not legal advice.