Case ID: okla_67/html/0110-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HARDY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NATIONAL SURETY CO. v. FIRST BANK OF TEXOLA.
    No. 8993
    Opinion Filed Dec. 11, 1917.
    (169 Pac. 1091.)
    (Syllabus.)
    1. Appeal aaid Error — Assignments of Error — Review.
    Where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial in the petition in- error, no question is properly presented in this court to review errors alleged to have occurred in the progress of the trial in the lower court.
    
      2. Same — Sufficiency of Assignments.
    Where assignments of error are so indefinite and general as not to point out the errors complained of, and do not direct the court’s attention to-any facts showing cause for reversal, the Supreme Court will not consider them.
    Error from District Court, Beckham County; T. P. Olay, Judge.
    Action between the National Surely Company and the First Bank of Texola. Judgment for the latter, arid the former brings error.
    Dismissed.
    N. B. Maxey and E. H. Gipson, for plaintiff in error.
    T; Reginald Aviso, for defendant in error.
   HARDY, J.

Motion to dismiss this appeal is filed' on the ground that error is not assigned upon the action of the court in overruling mtotron for new trial, and that there are no assignments which present for review any matters appearing upon the face of the record.

Assuming that t-he first, second, and fifth assignments are sufficient to present the matters intended to be urged, they cannot Fe considered because there is no assignment of error.' presenting the action of the court fit overruling- the motion for new trial, and When this is nut done no action that seeks to have reviewed' errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court, and such cannot be. reviewed. O’Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 Pac. 141; Maddox v. Barrett, 44 Okla. 101, 143 Pac. 673; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 Pac. 703; Nichols v. Dexter, 52 Okla. 152, 152 Pac. 817; McDonald v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 Pac. 920; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 Okla. 112, 128 Pac. 265; Butler v. Okla. St. Bank, 36 Okla. 611, 129 Pac. 750; Bice v. Myers, 45 Okla. 507, 145 Pac. 1150; Creech v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 47 Okla. 100, 147 Pac. 775; Aaron v. American Nat. Bk., 60 Okla. 137, 159 Pac. 246.

The third assignment is that the court erred in rendering judgment for the defendant while the fourth is that the court erred in not rendering judgment for the plaintiff. These assignments are too indefinite and general to present any question for review. Commerce Trust Co. v. School District No. 37, 47 Okla. 111, 147 Pac. 303; Jones v. Lee, 43 Okla. 257, 142 Pac. 996.

Plaintiff in error asks to be permitted to amend -his petition in error by assigning as error the action of the court in overruling its motion for a new trial, but since more than six months have expired since the rendition and entry of the judgment appealed from, this cannot be done. Creech v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 47 Okla. 100, 147 Pac. 775; Turner v. First National Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 Pac. 703; Ardmore Oil & Milling Co. v. Doggett Grain Co., 32 Okla. 280, 122 Pac. 241.

The app-ea-l is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.