Case ID: okla_39/html/0098-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBERTSON, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. DAVIS.
    No. 2726.
    Opinion Filed June 11, 1913.
    Rehearing Denied August 6, 1913.
    (134 Pac. 21.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Presentation for Review — Denial of New Trial. Where the petition in error does not 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 during the progress of the trial in the court below, and the appeal will be dismissed.
    (Syllabus by Robertson, C.)
    
      Error from District Court, Lincoln County; Roy Hoffman, Judge.
    
    Action by Eugenia Davis against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings'error.
    Dismissed.
    
      W. F. Evans, R. A. Kleinschmidt, and J. H. Grant, for plaintiff in eror.
    
      S. A. Cordell and W. L. Johnson, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

ROBERTSON, C.

There is a motion by defendant in error to dismiss this appeal, which must be sustained.

The petition in error does not assign as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and, therefore, no question is properly presented in this court to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below. Hunter v. Hines, 33 Okla. 590, 127 Pac. 286; Burrus v. Funk, 29 Okla. 677, 119 Pac. 976; Meyer v. James, 29 Okla. 7, 115 Pac. 1016; Martin v. Gassert, 17 Okla. 177, 87 Pac. 586.

The appeal, therefore, should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.