Case ID: ariz_3/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Civil No. 291.
    Filed September 2, 1890.]
    [32 Pac. 266.]
    A. B. KOONS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. THE ARIZONA MINING COMPANY and THE PHŒNIX MINING COMPANY, Defendants and Appellees.
    1. Appeal and Error—Bill op Exceptions—Mcstion por New Trial •— Assignments op Error—Putnam v. Putnam, ante, p. 182, 24 Pao. 320, Followed—Fundamental Error.—'Where there are no errors assigned other than such as might have been good cause for a new trial and no bill of exceptions was preserved to the ruling of the court upon motion for a new trial, this court cannot consider the errors assigned. Putnam, v. Putnam, supra, followed. No errors appearing on the face of the record the judgment will be affirmed.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. William W. Porter, Judge.
    Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    Edwards & Buck, for Appellants.
    L. H. Chalmers, and Baker & Campbell, for Appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

Upon the authority of Putnam v. Putnam, ante, p. 182, 24 Pac. 320, we cannot consider the errors assigned by appellants in this case, as no bill of exceptions was preserved to the ruling of the court upon the motion for a new trial.

There is nothing but the minute entries of the clerk in this transcript showing that the motion was ever made or acted upon by the court. All the errors assigned might have been good cause for a new trial, and should have been urged in the court below in their motion, and if an adverse ruling was made, this ruling excepted to and presented to us by a proper bill of exceptions.

As no error appears upon the face of the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.