Case ID: okla_44/html/0218-01.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

NIDIFFER v. NIDIFFER.
    No. 3868.
    Opinion Filed November 10, 1914.
    (144 Pac. 150.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Assignment of Error — Denial of New Trial. Errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of a trial cannot be considered by this court, unless the overruling of the motion for a new trial is assigned as error.
    (Syllabus by Rittenhouse, C.)
    
      Error from District Court, Ottawa County;
    
    
      Preston S. Davis, Judge.
    
    Action by Lucy Nidiffer against Robert Nidiffer for divorce and alimony. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Wm. P. Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. H. Kornegay, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

This action was instituted in the district court of Ottawa county by Lucy Nidiffer against Robert .Nidiffer for a divorce on the grounds of adultery and for alimony. Judgment was rendered in favor of Lucy Ni-differ for a divorce and $.1,600 alimony, which sum was made a lien on the W. J4 of the S. W. of section 5, township 26 N., range 23 E., I. M. Motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and exceptions allowed.

The action of the trial court, in overruling the motion for a new trial is not assigned as error, and, as all the questions raise.d by the petition in error occurred during the progress of the trial, we cannot consider them, in the absence of an assignment of error based on the overruling of the motion for a new trial. Avery et al. v. Hays et al., ante, 144 Pac. 624.

The cause should, therefore, be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.