
    GRAHAM et al. v. ATWOOD.
    No. 3286.
    Opinion Filed November 25, 1913.
    (136 Pac. 1080.)
    1. APPEAL AND ERROR •— Case-Mad© —■ Sufficiency — Evidence. Where consideration of the assignments of error require an examination of the evidence, and the case-made does not contain an affirmative recital that it contains “all the evidence” introduced at the trial, no questions for review, are presented by such assignments.
    2. SAME — Certificate—Dismissal. The signature of the trial judge to the certificate settling a. case-made not being- attested by the seal of the court, and the ease-made not having been filed with the papers in the case, as required by section 5242, Rev. Laws 1910, no questions for review are presented by such record, and the appeal should be dismissed.
    (Syllabus by Galbraith, C.)
    
      Error from County Court, Garvin County; W. B. Mitchell, Judge.
    
    Action by. G. A. Atwood against Will Graham and others on an account for labor performed and board and lodging of certain laborers. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Dismissed.
    ' Jas. F. Tzvyford and Giddings & Giddings, for plaintiffs-in error.
    
      Thompson & Patterson, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

GALBRAITH, C.

Two reasons appear why the record in this case presents no question for review.

First. The errors assigned in the main require an examination of the evidence introduced at the trial in the court below. The case-made contains no recital that it contains “all the evidence” introduced at the trial, and an examination of it shows affirmatively that it does not contain all the evidence. It appears that a certain written statement of account and certain time checks that were material in establishing the amount of the plaintiff’s claim, and which were introduced in evidence, have not been incorporated in the case-made. Waltham Piano Co. v. Wolcott, 38 Okla. 770, 135 Pac. 339.

Second. The case-made is not sufficiently authenticated. The certificate of the trial judge to the case-made bears date of April 20, 1911; but the seal of the court is not attached thereto, nor does it appear that the case-made was filed with the papers in the case, as required by section 5242, Rev. Laws 1910. Stallard v. Knapp, 9 Okla. 591, 60 Pac. 234; Marple v. Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank, 28 Okla. 810, 115 Pac. 1124; Brooks et al. v. United Mine Workers of America, 36 Okla. 109, 128 Pac. 236; Oklahoma City v. McKean, 39 Okla. 300, 135 Pac. 19.

It follows that the appeal should be dismissed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.'  