
    KENT et al. v. SECURITY STATE BANK.
    No. 15418
    Opinion Filed Oct. 13, 1925.
    1. Appeal and Error — Necessity for Objections Below — Insufficiency of Evidence.
    An assignment of error that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict of the jury does not present a question for review on appeal, unless the complaining party suf-íered an adverse ruling on a demurrer to the evidence in the trial of the cause, or a request was denied for an instructed verdict.
    2. Judgment Sustained.
    Record examined; held, to be sufficient to support judgment for the plaintiff.
    (Syllabus by Stephenson, O.)
    CO tH CO CO 00 ft® •H Ha ^ o Ha CO •H ^ -3 CT ¡2¡ ■■ o I 050 U2 (t> -q cp Oi r- * p pi -5
    Commissioners’ Opinion, Division No. 4.
    Er¡ror from District Court, Tillman County; Frank Mathews, Judge.
    Action by Security State Bank against C. I. Kent et al. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    P. Mounts, for plaintiffs in error.
    Wilson & Roe, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C.

The Security State Bank commenced its action against O. I. Kent et al. for debt. The t,rial of the cause resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants have appealed the cause for review. The only assignment of error ^ relied upon by the plaintiff in error for' reversal is that there is not sufficient Evidence to support the verdict in favor 'of the plaintiff. The defendants did not interpose a demurrer to the evidence in the trial of the cause, or request the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendants.

The rule is that the assignment of erro,r, that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, does not present error for review here, unless the complaining party suffered an adverse ruling upon a demurrer to the evidence, o,r a request for an instructed verdict in the trial of the cause.

It is recommended that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.  