Case ID: okla_33/html/0590-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WILLIAMS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HUNTER v. HINES et al.
    
    No. 4039.
    Opinion Filed October 8, 1912.
    (127 Pac. 386.)
    1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Insufficiency of Record. Plaintiff having waived all errors of law, if any, committed on the trial, by failing to file a motion for a new trial, and no error being apparent on the face of the record, or otherwise urged, nothing is presented to this court for review.
    2. SAME — Motion for New Trial. Plaintiff in error in his petition in error failing to assign as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial, 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.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from District Court, Kiowa County; I. R. Tolbert, Judge.
    
    Action between A. J. Hunter and Ula M. Hines and others. From the judgment, Hunter brings error.
    Dismissed.
    
      
      Hays, Carpenter & Hughes, and J. B. Terral, for plaintiff in error.
    
      O. B. Riegel, for defendants in error.
   WILLIAMS, J.

Counsel for defendants in error insists that this proceeding in error should be dismissed (1) for the reason that the record does not disclose that a motion for a new trial was filed or passed upon, and (2) that the petition in error does not allege the overruling of a motion for a new trial as ground for a review and reversal of the judgment.

The motion is well taken as to both grounds. Deering v. Meyers, 29 Okla. 232, 116 Pac. 793; Burrus v. Funk, 29 Okla. 677, 119 Pac. 976; Cox v. Lavine, 29 Okla. 312, 116 Pac. 920; McDonald et al. v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 Pac. 920; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 Pac. 1016.

TURNER, C. J., and HAYES, KANE, and DUNN, JJ., concur.