Cleveland v. Lampkin
| Decision Date | 15 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | 7446. |
| Parties | CLEVELAND ET AL. v. LAMPKIN ET AL. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court has no power to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from District Court, Kiowa County; James R. Tolbert, Judge.
Action between A. S. Cleveland and Wm. D. Cleveland, Jr., copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Wm. D. Cleveland & Sons, against W. E. Lampkin and the Home State Bank. Judgment for the latter, and the former bring error. Cause dismissed.
Morse, Standeven & Willingham, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiffs in error.
Zink & Cline, of Hobart, for defendants in error.
Motion is presented to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that plaintiffs in error have failed to assign as error the overruling of their motion for new trial. The only errors assigned here are those alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial relative to the giving of instructions and the exclusion of certain evidence. The established rule in this jurisdiction is that: "Where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court has no power to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial." O'Neil et al. v. James, 40 Okl. 661, 140 P. 141.
The motion is sustained, and the cause dismissed.
Adopted in whole.
To continue reading
Request your trial