
    STRAHAN v. DE SOTO PAINT MFG. CO.
    No. 6077.
    Opinion Filed January 18, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied February 15, 1916.
    (154 Pac. 1128.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Presentation Below — Necessity. Errors alleged to hare occurred at the trial in the lower court, unless the same are excepted to. will not be considered on review in this court.
    (■Syllabus by Rittenhouse, 0.)
    
      Error from Superior Court, Muskogee County; Farrar L. McCain, Judge.
    
    
      Action by the De Soto Paint Manufacturing Company, a corporation, against Kent Strahan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      W. D. Halfhill, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Mosier, Greenslade & Reynolds, for defendant in ■error.
   Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

This is an action upon two promissory notes. The defendant answered, setting up: (1) A material alteration of the notes; and (2) fraudulent representations as to the quality of the paint for which the notes were given. The questions presented ■ are founded upon the sustaining of a demurrer to the evidence in support of the second defense; but, inasmuch as no objection was made to the sustaining of such demurrer nor exception saved to such ruling, there is nothing for us to decide. It is well settled in .this jurisdiction that errors occurring at the trial not. excepted to will not be reviewed on appeal. Muskogee Electric Traction Co. v. Reed, 35 Okla. 334, 130 Pac. 157; Hailey v. Bowman, 41 Okla. 294, 137 Pac. 722.

The judgment should therefore- be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  