Case ID: okla_44/html/0611-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RITTENHOUSE, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YOUNG v. MISSOURI, O. & G. R. CO.
    No. 3855.
    Opinion Filed January 19, 1915.
    (145 Pac. 1118.)
    1. APPEAL AND ERROR — Presentation for Review — Brief— Evidence. Where plaintiff in error complains on account of the admission and rejection of testimony, he must set out in his brief the full substance of the testimony to the admission or rejection of which he objects. Rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 137 Pac. xi).
    2. SAME — Objection Below — Instructions. Instructions to the jury will not be considered here unless • exceptions thereto were saved and allowed in the trial court.
    (Syllabus by Rittenhouse. C.)
    
      Error frorh Superior Court, Muskogee County;
    
    
      Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    
    
      Action by W. J. Young against the Missouri, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Brook & Brook, for plaintiff in error.
    
      B. R. Jones and /. C. Wilhoit, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

The brief of plaintiff in error complains of the admission and rejection of testimony. Rule 25 (38 Okla. x, 137 Pac. xi) of this court requires that, where a party complains on account of the admission or rejection of testimony, he shall set out in his brief the full substance of the testimony to the admission or rejection of which he objects, stating specifically his objection thereto. This he has failed to do, and the assignment will therefore not be considered. Scoville et al. v. Powell et al., 33 Okla. 446, 126 Pac. 730.

Plaintiff in error assigns as error the giving of certain instructions. An examination of the record discloses that no exceptions were saved, and, if there was error, the same was waived by failure to except. Section 5003, Rev. Laws 1910; Finch et al. v. Brown et al., 27 Okla. 217, 111 Pac. 391; Straughan v. Cooper, 41 Okla. 515, 139 Pac. 265; Shuler et al. v. Hall, 42 Okla. 325, 141 Pac. 280.

The cause should therefore be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.