
    Hill and Wife v. Crownover.
    Where it does not appear from the record whether certain instructions asked for were given or refused, they will noth© considered by thi^ court.
    Where there is no statement of facts, nor anything in the record by which it may be seen whether instructions which were asked tor and refused were relevant to file evidence or not, the ruling of the court in refusing such instructions will not be levised. (Note 2.)
    
    Error from Fayette, This was a suit brought by the defendant in error to recover of the plaintiffs in error the possession of a tract of land, the former .claiming the title by virtue of a purchase at a sheriff’s sale, at which the land ■was sold by the sheriff as the properly ot and to satisfy an execution against the said Warren J. Hill, and the plaintiffs in error claimed title by virtue of a conveyance to the wife from the former proprietor. The petition contains a statement of the plaintiff’s title and the claim of the defendants, aud an allegation that at the time of the purchase by the plaintiff at sheriff’s sale the said hind was tlio property of the husband, the said Warren J. Hill. There is in the record a notice from the plaintiff to the defendants to produce at the trial the deed .under which the defendants claim title, and a deed is accordingly set out answering' to that described in the notice to produce, it being- a (Iced from one John Ííabb, and purporting', in consideration of the sum of 01,000, to convey the land in question to the wife, Sibby Hill, and the heirs' of Wan'en J. I-Iill. The ease was tried at the Tall Term, 1848, and there was a verdict and judgment thereon for the plaintiff. The defendants moved for a new trial, upon the alleged erroneous instructions and rulings of the court at the trial. The motion was overruled. There was also a niotion in arrest of judgment overruled, and the defendant gave notice of an appeal, and subsequently brought up the case by writ of error.
    Note 2.—Armstrong v. Lipscomb, 11 T., 649; McMahan v. Rice, 16 T., 335; Dalby v. Booth, 18 T., 563; Dever v. Branch, 18 T., 616; Birge v. Wanhop, 23 T., 441; Mann v. Falcon, 25 T., 271.
    
      Webb and Mayfield, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Hamilton, Green and Hancoclc, for defendant in error.
   Wiieelbr, J.

Tor the plaintiffs in error, it is insisted that the court erred in the instructions to the jury, and in overruling- the motion for a new trial and the motion iu arrest of judgment.

There are iu the transcript' several propositions which purport to be instructions asked by the plaintiff, but it does not appear whether they were given or refused, or even that they were brought to the attention of the court; and it is manifest, therefore, that'they cannot be considered by this court. There are also several propositions which appear to he instructions asked by the defendants and refin-d; but there is in l ho record no statement of facts, and nothing by which it may be seen whether these instructions were relevant to the evidence; and in such cases this court has decided that the ruling of the court in refusing- instructions will not be the subject of revision. (Holman v. Britton, 2 Tex. R., 207, 301; Id., 305.)

We have no means of revising the judgment of the court overruling the motion for a new trial. It does not appear that the motion presented truly the rulings of the court or the facts on which it assumed to be founded. The causes assigned iu its support an* wholly unsupported by the record. Nor does there appear any foundation for the objection now urged to the judgment of the court overruling the motion in arrest of judgment; that is, that there were parties iu interest not before the court. It docs not so appear from the record. We see no error in the judgment, and are of opinion, therefore, that it be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  