
    CLEVELAND et al. v. LAMPKIN et al.
    No. 7446
    Opinion Filed May 15, 1917.
    (165 Pac. 159.)
    Appeal and Error — Assignments of Error— Overruling of Motion for New Trial— Review.
    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.
    (Syllabus by Bleakmore, O.)
    Error from District Court, Kiowa County; James R. Tolbert, Judge.
    Action between A. S. Cleveland and Win. D. Cleveland, Jr., copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Wm. D. Cleveland & Sons, against AY. E. Lampkin and the Home State Bank.
    Judgment for the latter, and the former bring error. Cause dismissed.
    Morse, Standeven & AAtillingham, for plaintiffs in error.
    Zink & Cline, for defendants in error.
   Opinion by

BLEAKMORE, C.

Motion is presented to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that plaintiffs in error have failed to assign as error the overruling of their motion for new trial. The only errors assigned here are those alleged to have occurred during the progress of the trial relative to the giving of instructions and the exclusion of certain evidence. The established rule in this jurisdiction is that:

“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 et al. v. James, 40 Okla. 661, 140 Pac. 141.

The motion is sustained, and the cause dismissed.

By the Court: .It is so ordered.  