
    Alonzo A. Wicks et al., Appellants, v. Albert D. Thompson, Respondent.
    (Argued October 20, 1891;
    decided December 8, 1891.)
    Only questions of law raised by exceptions taken during the progress of the trial can be reviewed in this court.
    Where, therefore, the record on appeal to this court contains no exceptions, the denial of a motion for a new trial is not the subject of review here.
    Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered upon an order made February 9, 1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and affirmed an order denying a motion for a. new trial.
    The following is the opinion in full:
    “The plaintiffs brought this action to recover damages for trespass upon their real estate. The jury rendered a verdict ag’ainst them. They made a motion on the minutes of the trial judge for a new trial, which was denied, and judgment upon the verdict was entered against them. Then they appealed from the General Term from the order denying the new trial, and from the judgment, and the order and judgment were affirmed, and then they appealed to this court.
    “ There is nothing for review here. The record does not contain a single exception taken by the plaintiffs. All the evidence offered by them was received, and no evidence of the defendant was received to which they objected. The charge of the judge was entirely satisfactory to the plaintiffs, and no part thereof was excepted to by them. We have many times said we can review here only questions of law raised by exceptions taken during the progress of the trial. In such a case as this, where the record contains no exceptions, the denial of the motion for a new trial is not subject to review here. (Duryea v. Vosburgh, 121 N. Y. 51.)
    “ The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.”
    
      William G. Nicoll for appellants.
    
      Wilmot M. Smith for respondent.
   Earl, J., reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.  