
    OKLAHOMA CITY v. SHELDON.
    (Syllabus.)
    No. 12417
    Opinion Filed Nov. 21, 1922.
    I. Appeal and Error — Assignment of Error in Brief of Plaintiff in Error.
    Where the brief filed by the plaintiff in error fails to assign error as required by rule No. 26 of this court, but only in general terms complains of the action of the trial court in the trial of the case, the judgment will be affirmed.
    3. Appeal and Error — Presumptions in Favor of Judgment.
    Error is never presumed by this court, it must be affirmatively shown by the record, and unless error is made to appear, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Edward D. Oldfield, Judge.
    Action by Ella Sheldon against Oklahoma City for damages for personal injuries. Judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    C. H. Ruth and O. L. Price, for plaintiff in error.
    Twyford & Smith, for defendant in error.
   KENNAMER, J.

This is an action instituted by Ella Sheldon against the city of Oklahoma to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her on March 15, 1920, by stepping into a hole in the pavement at the intersection of Third and Walnut streets in said city. From a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000 defendant brings this appeal.

Plaintiff in error has wholly failed to set forth any assignments or specifications of error in its brief.

Counsel for the plaintiff in error in their brief in a general way have made some complaint in regard to the action of the trial court in overruling a motion filed to make the petition' of the defendant in error, plaintiff in the trial court, more definite and certain. .But the brief filed on behalf of the plaintiff in error is not directed towards any specific assignment of error, nor is any part of the record abstracted as required by rule No. 26 of this court. In this situation the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. Faunce & Spinney v. Sam Daube & Co., 70 Oklahoma, 173 Pac. 70 : Clark v. Salluska, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 505 : Wells v. McArthur, 77 Okla. 279, 188 Pac. 322 ; Carolina v. Montgomery, 74 Oklahoma, 177 Pac. 612 ; Neill v. Union Nat. Bank, 72 Oklahoma, 178 Pac. 659 : Riter Conley Co. v. Wryn, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 280 ; Cassidy v. Thompson, 84 Okla. 33, 202 Pac. 291.

Error is never presumed by the Supreme Court, but it must always be affirmatively shown by the record, and where this is not done, the judgment will be affirmed. Hoehler v. Short, 40 Okla. 681, 140 Pac. 146 ; Orendorff v. Board of County Commissioners of Grant County, 44 Okla. 271, 144 Pac. 383 ; Bunker v. Harding, 70 Oklahoma, 174 Pac. 749.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

KANE, JOHNS ON. MoNEILL. MILLER, and NICHOLSON, JJ., concur.  