McVEY v. COMMISSIONERS OF LAND OFFICE

McVEY v. COMMISSIONERS OF LAND OFFICE
1927 OK 84
254 P. 729
122 Okla. 274
Case Number: 17391
Decided: 03/29/1927
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

McVEY
v.
COMMISSIONERS OF LAND OFFICE et al.

Syllabus

¶0 Appeal and Error--Review--Necessity for Motion for New Trial.
A party cannot have errors of law occurring in the trial reviewed by this court unless he has made a legal and sufficient motion for new trial presenting the errors complained of to the trial court.

Error from District Court, Alfalfa County; James B. Cullison, Judge.

Action between F. M. McVey and the Commissioners of the Land Office of the State of Oklahoma. From judgment of the trial court dismissing the appeal from a decision of the Commissioners of the Land Office to the District Court of Alfalfa County, McVev appeals. Dismissed.

Guy D. Talbot, for plaintiff in error.
George E. Merritt, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

¶1 From the decision of the Commissioners of the Land Office made on September 28, 1923, wherein the said commissioners awarded the lease rights and improvements upon the northeast quarter of section 33, township 27 north, range 11 west, to J. S. Meridith after having duly advertised the same for sale, upon condition that the former lessee, F. M. McVey, might redeem the same within 15 days, the said F. M. McVey appealed to the district court of Alfalfa county.

¶2 The issue was submitted to the trial court, statement of counsel for plaintiff in error was made and the record in the trial court examined, from which a finding of facts was made and incorporated in the journal entry by the trial court and judgment rendered thereon dismissing the appeal.

¶3 The plaintiff in error appealed from the judgment of the trial court without presenting the alleged errors to the trial court for review, by motion for new trial.

¶4 In the case of Buchanan v. Fant, 110 Okla. 206, 238 P. 962, this court said:

"Where findings of fact were made in the journal entry of judgment, the presumption is that there was sufficient evidence to justify the judgment rendered."

¶5 To the same effect is the case of Eastwood et al. v. Clinkscales, 82 Okla. 52, 197 P. 455, in which it is said:

"The trial court made certain findings of fact upon which judgment was based and we are to presume, nothing to the contrary appearing, that there was sufficient evidence to justify the judgment rendered."

¶6 In the case of Buchanan v. Fant, supra, the court said: