Case Name: CAMPBELL, v. LANE
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1912-05-14
Citations: 31 Okla. 757
Docket Number: No. 1737
Parties: CAMPBELL, v. LANE.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
CAMPBELL, v. LANE.
No. 1737.
Opinion Filed May 14, 1912.
(123 Pac. 1061.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Review—Motion for New Trial — Necessity. Errors occurring on the trial of a cause cannot be reviewed by this court, though the cause was tried to the court without a jury, unless the errors complained of have been presented to the trial court by a motion for a new trial.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Nowata County Court; Bert Van Leuven, Judge.
Action by Albert Campbell against George W. Lane. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Dismissed.
William H. Vann, for plaintiff in error.
Osborn & Keith, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
HAYES, J.
Plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, brought this action of unlawful detainer in a justice of the peace court in Nowata county for the recovery of the possession of certain real property which he alleged was unlawfully detained by defendant in error, defendant below. Judgment was rendered in said justice's court against plaintiff in error, from which judgment he appealed to the county court of Nowata county, where, on the 19th day of May, a like judgment was rendered, assessing costs against plaintiff in error.
The cause was tried to the court, without the intervention of a jury, and is now before us for review on a transcript. The following assignments of error are urged for reversal of the cause: (1) Said court erred in sustaining defendant's demurrer to the evidence. (2) Said court erred in discharging the jury before they rendered a verdict. (3) Said court erred in assessing costs against plaintiff in error.
It cannot be determined from the foregoing assignments of error, without reviewing the evidence taken at the trial of the cause, whether any prejudicial error was committed by the trial court. No motion for a new trial was filed by plaintiff in error. It 'is a well-settled rule of law that errors occurring at the trial of a cause cannot be reviewed in this court, although the cause was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury, unless the errors complained of have been called to the attention of the trial court by a motion for a new trial. Nelson et al. v. Glenn et al., 28 Okla. 575, 115 Pac. 471; Ahern-Ott Mfg. Co. v. Condon et al., 23 Okla. 365, 100 Pac. 556.
The proceeding in error is accordingly dismissed.
All the Justices concur.