Case Name: GILKERSON v. COFFEY et al.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1915-09-07
Citations: 51 Okla. 27
Docket Number: No. 4836
Parties: GILKERSON v. COFFEY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 27–28

Head Matter:
GILKERSON v. COFFEY et al.
No. 4836.
Opinion Filed September 7, 1915.
(151 Pac. 680.)
APPEAL AND ERROR — Presentation for Review — Motion for New Trial. Where appellant fails to assign as 'error the overruling of his motion for a new trial in his petition in error, no question which seeks to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court.
(Syllabus by Crow, C.)
Appeal from County Court, Woodward County; Clyde H. Wyand, Judge.
Action by E. E. Coffey and others against C. S. Gil-kerson. From the judgment, Gilkerson brings error.
Dismissed.
D. W. Tracy, W. A. Briggs, and C. S. Gilkerson, for plaintiff in error.
Nicholas & Lyle, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
Opinion by
CEOW, C.
Plaintiff in error has failed to assign as error the overruling of his motion for new trial by the trial court. All the assignments of error contained in his petition in error are such as would require a review of the record in the case to discover errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial, in the lower court. "It is a well-established rule in this court that, where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of a motion for a new trial in his petition in error, no question is properly presented in the Supreme Court to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the lower court." See McDonald et al. v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 Pac. 920; Bice et al. v. Myers et al., 45 Okla. 507, 145 Pac. 1150; Cox v. Lavine, 29 Okla. 312, 116 Pac. 920.
We therefore recommend that the appeal herein be •dismissed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.