
    VAN NOY v. SCHNOOR et al.
    No. 16701
    Opinion Filed Dec. 22, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1926.
    (Syllabus.)
    1. Appeal and Error — Necessity for Urging Error in Brief.
    Errors not presented or argued in plaintiff in error’s brief will not be considered by the court, but will be treated as abandoned.
    2. Appeal and Error — Necessity for Exceptions to Instructions.
    Ail instruction given the jury by the trial court will not be reviewed by this court unless exceptions are saved at the trial.
    t*1 «-I ! • Q , p ; 2 Ü « Á ^ P3 có S3 ^ †* m CT> p ® W £ P 3 ft 'P CD H ^ co P G 9. a ^ id 1w cc IÍS1 . g1 d & BQ CO M . 00 ftp p ft ft . ftCQ w B J (2 M ^ N ^ d 2 °° c4 &400 - •»> & vS S | § ¿6E
    Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Lucius Babcock, Judge. .
    Action between J. B. Van Noy and E. V. Schnoor and another. From the judgment, the former brings error.
    Appeal dismissed.
    D. B. Welty, for plaintiff in error.
    Chambers & Priest, for defendants in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This case was appealed from the district court of Oklahoma county. The case was tried to a jury and a verdict returned in favor of defendants- in error on the 28th day of January, 1925, for the sum of $400.81, upon which judgment was pronounced by the court and motion for a new trial having been overruled, plaintiff in error appealed.

Numerous erroa-s a,re assigned, but only one is relied on in plaintiff in error’s brief, which is No. 1 of the court’s instructions to the jury. It is a well-settled rule of this court that assignments of error ¡not presented or argued in plaintiff in error’s brief will not be considered by the court, but will be treated as abandoned. Clanton v. City of Altus, 102 Okla. 259, 229 Pac. 273; Phillips v. Classen, 93 Okla. 82, 219 Pac. 708; Florence v. Russell, 105 Okla. 20, 231 Pac. 301.

Plaintiff in error saved no exception to instruction No. 1, nor to any other of the court’s instructions, and defendants in error now move the court to dismiss the appeal. This court will not review instructions given the jury by the trial court unless exception is saved at the trial. Firebaugh v. Dubois, 70 Okla. 269, 173 Pac. 1126; Fisher v. Woolery, 94 Okla. 110, 221 Pac. 45.

Only one assignment of error oemg relied on, «¡nd it being in such condition that it cannot he reviewed by the court, it follows, therefore, that the motion must he sustained and the appeal dismissed.

Judgment is rendered against ,T. B. Van Noy, principal, and Belva M. Peck and Margaret McCarty, sureties on supersedeas bonds, for the sum of $400.81, with interest at the rate of six per cent. j)er annum from January 28, 1925.  