NATIONAL SUR. CO. v. FIRST BANK OF TEXOLA

NATIONAL SUR. CO. v. FIRST BANK OF TEXOLA
1917 OK 603
169 P. 1091
67 Okla. 110
Case Number: 8993
Decided: 12/11/1917
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

NATIONAL SURETY CO.
v.
FIRST BANK OF TEXOLA.

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; Turner v. First National Bank, 40 Okla. 498, 139 P. 703; Ardmore Oil & Milling Co. v. Doggett Grain Co., 32 Okla. 280, 122 P. 241.