
    Mary E. Lott v. The Kansas City, Fort Scott & Gulf Railroad Company.
    1. Demuebeb — Ruling—No Exception — No Review. Before this court can review a ruling on a demurrer, it must appear that exceptions were saved in the court below.
    2. New Tbiae — Motion, Necessary. The ruling on a demurrer to the evidence is a decision occurring on the trial; and in order to enable the supreme court to review such ruling, it is necessary that a motion for a new trial be made and filed within the time prescribed by law. (Oruble v. Ryus, 23 Kas. 195.)
    
      Error from Miami District Court.
    
    Action brought by Mary E. Lott, to recover of the railroad company for personal injuries received by her while attempting to cross the defendant’s railroad in Miami county. At the time of the injury she was riding on horseback. The horse was struck and killed, and the plaintiff injured and bruised, from the effects of which she suffered very much in her health. After plaintiff had introduced her testimony, defendant filed its demurrer thereto, which demurrer was sustained by the court at the June term, 1887. Plaintiff brings the case here for review.
    
      J. JE. Wright, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Wallace Pratt, and Charles W. Blair, for defendant in error.
   Opinion by

Clogston, C.:

Two errors are presented — first, sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff’s third cause of action alleged in her petition; and, second, sustaining a demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence at the trial. Both of these questions must be decided in favor of the defendant. First, plaintiff saved no exception to the overruling of the demurrer; therefore the ruling on the demurrer to the plaintiff’s third cause of action cannot be reviewed. Before a ruling on a demurrer can be reviewed in this court, exceptions must be saved in the court below.

As to the second error assigned, the record shows that there was no motion made by the plaintiff for a new trial. Before this court can review a demurrer to the testimony, or other errors occurring at the trial, a motion for a new trial must be made. None having been made in this case, no review can be had. (Gruble v. Ryus, 23 Kas. 195; Norris v. Evans, 39 id. 668.)

It is therefore recommended that the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

All the Justices concurring.  