BLOCK v. CROCKER

BLOCK v. CROCKER
1915 OK 735
152 P. 104
51 Okla. 501
Case Number: 5156
Decided: 10/05/1915
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

BLOCK et al.
v.
CROCKER et al.

Syllabus

¶0 APPEAL AND ERROR--Presentation for Review--Denial of New Trial. Where the plaintiffs in error fail to assign as error the overruling of their motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court has no power to review errors alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial.

Error from District Court, Adair County; John H. Pitchford, Judge.

Action by A. Block and others against C. J. Crocker and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

John A. Goodall, for plaintiffs in error.
R. Y. Nance, for defendants in error.

WATTS, C.

¶1 This case comes from the district court of Adair county, where it was tried to the court without the intervention of a jury. Judgment went for defendants and plaintiffs appeal. The following are assigned as error: (1) In the findings of fact that the plaintiffs were represented in the meeting of creditors by their attorney, Winsor; (2) in the court's decision that Harry Winsor, as attorney for the plaintiffs, acted within the scope of his authority in settling the claim of plaintiffs for 30 per cent of the amount due, and that he had full power and right so to do.

¶2 Counsel does not assign as error the overruling of the motion for new trial; therefore we cannot examine the evidence to determine whether his position is well taken.

"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 v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 P. 141.)

¶3 As the time has expired for filing an amended petition in error, we recommend that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

¶4 By the Court: It is so ordered.