Case Name: HARRIS v. TUPEKER, Adm'r, et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1923-11-20
Citations: 96 Okla. 117
Docket Number: No. 14216
Parties: HARRIS v. TUPEKER, Adm’r, et al.
Judges: McNEILL, V. C. J., and KENNAMER, NICHOLSON, and MASON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 117–117

Head Matter:
HARRIS v. TUPEKER, Adm’r, et al.
No. 14216
Opinion Filed Nov. 20, 1923.
(Syllabus.)
Appeal and Error — Record — Motions — Review.
Motions presented in the trial 'court, rulings thereon, and exceptions thereto are not properly a part of the record, and can only be presented to this court for review by case-mp.de or bill of exceptions, and, when not so presented, the ruling of the trial court on such motions will not he reviewed by this court.
Error from District Court, Creek County; Mark L. Bozarth, Judge.
Action by Fred W. Tupeker, administrator, against Jessie H-alrris and others. From, the judgment, the defendant named brings error.
Affirmed.
LaFayette Walker, for plaintiff in error.
Wellington L. Merwine, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
COCHRAN, J.
This action was commenced by Fred W. Tupeker, administrator of the estate ofl W. H. Blankenship, against Jessie Harris, Joe Albrahiam, Twin 'State Oil Company, Richard Harris, LaFayette Walker, and Otis E. Cureton to quiet title to certain lands in Creek county. The appeal is by transcript. While several assignments of error are contained in the petition in error, the only assignment presented and argued in the brief is that the trial court erred in overruling a motion of the defendant Jessie Harris to dismiss the petition of the plaintiff. An examination of the transcript discloses that this motion to dismiss was on the ground that the action had been fraudulently filed and in pursuance of a fraudulent conspiracy and collusion between the plaintiff and certain of the defendants. Evidence was taken on this motion, and same was overruled by the trial court.
It has been repeatedly held by this court that motions presented in the trial court, the rulings thereon, and exceptions thereto are not properly a part of the record and can tonly be presented to this court by case-imade or bill of exceptions. Menten v. Shutte, 11 Okla. 381, 67 Pac. 478; Lamb v. Young, 24 Okla. 614, 104 Pac. 335; McCoy v. McCoy, 27 Okla. 371, 112 Pac. 1040; School District No. 1, Pontotoc Co. v. Vinsant, 27 Okla. 731, 113 Pac. 714; London v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 68 Okla. 59, 171 Pac. 719; Dickson v. McDuffee, 63 Okla. 218, 161 Pac. 476.
Inasmuch as this motion is not a part cf the record and is not presented to this cow' by case-made or bill of exceptions, the-ruling of the trial court thereon will not be reviewed.
The other assignments of error having been abandoned by the plaintiff in error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
McNEILL, V. C. J., and KENNAMER, NICHOLSON, and MASON, JJ., concur.