Case Name: THE SANTA RITA LAND AND MINING COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. T. LILLIE MERCER, Defendant and Appellee
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 1890-04-18
Citations: 3 Ariz. 181
Docket Number: Civil No. 256
Parties: THE SANTA RITA LAND AND MINING COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. T. LILLIE MERCER, Defendant and Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arizona Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
[Civil No. 256.
Filed April 18, 1890.]
[73 Pac. 398.]
THE SANTA RITA LAND AND MINING COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. T. LILLIE MERCER, Defendant and Appellee.
1. Appeal and Error—Defective Record—Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1887, p. 185; Par. 842, Cited—Objections Raised for First Time on Appeal Will not be Considered.—Where the reeord contains neither motion for new trial, exceptions to the findings, ■ exceptions to conclusions of law, statements of facts, nor bill of exceptions, there is no question presented for the consideration of an appellate court. The assignment of errors cannot be considered as the objections raised thereby are made here for the first time.
2. Same—Failure to Allege Error—Judgment Supported by Pleadings—Affirmed.—Where error alleged cannot be reviewed and the judgment is fully supported by the pleadings an appellate court cannot search further for errors, and the judgment must be affirmed.
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District in and' for the County of Pima. W. H. Barnes, Judge.
Affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Haynes & Mitchell, for Appellant.
Hereford & Lovell, for Appellee.

Opinion:
KIBBEY, J.
The reeord in this cause presents no question for our consideration. The action was to recover possession of real estate. There was a trial by the court and judgment for the appellee, the defendant below.
The findings of the court, which are voluminous and elaborate, are copied into the transcript, but there was no exception reserved to them.
The minute entries of the clerk transcribed into the record before us refer to, and inferentially indicate, that there was .a motion for a new trial.
The motion -is not in the record in any way.. Section 842 of the Revised Statutes of 1887 prescribes that the motion for a new trial may be made a part of the record and the manner in which it may be done.
Appellant did not except to the conclusion of law by the court upon the facts found.
Neither motion for a new trial, exception to the findings, exception to the conclusion of law, statement of facts, nor hill of exceptions are in the record.
"We cannot consider the assignment of errors, as the objections raised thereby are made here for the first time. Tudor v. Hodges, 71 Tex. 392, 9 S. W. 443; Insurance Co. v. Milliken, 64 Tex. 48; Crowford v. McGinty, 11 S. W. (Tex.) 1066.
The judgment is fully supported by the pleadings, and we cannot search further for errors.
The judgment must therefore be affirmed.
Wright, C. J., and Sloan, J., concurring.