Nat'l Sur. Co. v. First Bank of Texola

• Decision Date: 11 December 1917
• Docket Number: Case Number: 8993
• Citation: 169 P. 1091,1917 OK 603,67 Okla. 110
• Parties: NATIONAL SURETY CO. v. FIRST BANK OF TEXOLA.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1917 OK 603

169 P. 1091

67 Okla. 110

NATIONAL SURETY CO. v. FIRST BANK OF TEXOLA.

Case Number: 8993

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: December 11, 1917

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Assignments of Error--Review.

Where the plaintiff in error fails to assign as error the overruling of the motion for a new trial in the petition in error, no question is properly presented in this court to review errors alleged to have occurred in the progress of the trial in the lower court.

2. Same--Sufficiency of Assignments.

Where assignments of error are so indefinite and general as not to point out the errors complained of, and do not direct the court's attention to any facts showing cause for reversal, the Supreme Court will not consider them.

Error from District Court, Beckham County; T. P. Clay, Judge.

Action between the National Surety Company and the First Bank of Texola. Judgment for the latter, and the former brings error. Dismissed.

N. B. Maxey and E. H. Gipson, for plaintiff in error.

T. Reginald Wise, for defendant in error.

HARDY, J.

¶1 Motion to dismiss this appeal is filed on the ground that error is not assigned upon the action of the court in overruling motion for new trial, and that there are no assignments which present for review any matters appearing upon the face of the record.

¶2 Assuming that the first, second, and fifth assignments are sufficient to present the matters intended to be urged, they cannot be considered because there is no assignment of error presenting the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial, and When this is not done no action that seeks to have reviewed errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial in the court below is properly presented to this court, and such cannot be reviewed. O'Neil v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141; Maddox v. Barrett, 44 Okla. 101, 143 P. 673; Turner v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; Nichols v. Dexter, 52 Okla. 152, 152 P. 817; McDonald v. Wilson, 29 Okla. 309, 116 P. 920; St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Dyer, 36 Okla. 112, 128 P. 265; Butler v. Okla. St. Bank, 36 Okla. 611, 129 P. 750; Bice v. Myers, 45 Okla. 507, 145 P. 1150; Creech v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 47 Okla. 100, 147 P. 775; Aaron v. American Nat. Bk., 60 Okla. 137, 159 P. 246.

¶3 The third assignment is that the court erred in rendering judgment for the defendant while the fourth is that the court erred in not rendering judgment for the plaintiff. These assignments are too indefinite and general to present any question for review. Commerce Trust Co. v. School District No. 37, 47 Okla. 111, 147 P. 303; Jones v. Lee, 43 Okla. 257, 142 P. 996.

¶4 Plaintiff in error asks to be permitted to amend his petition in error by assigning as error the action of the court in overruling its motion for a new trial, but since more than six months have expired since the rendition and entry of the judgment appealed from, this cannot be done. Creech v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 47 Okla. 100, 147 P. 775; ...