
    CLARK et al v. CAWDELL.
    No. 10067
    Opinion Filed May 13, 1919.
    (181 Pac. 285.)
    (Syllabus.)
    Appeal and Error — New Trial — Time for Motion for New Trial — Excuse—Review.
    Sections 5035 and 5036, Rev. Laws 1910, requiring a motion for new trial to be filed witbin three days after the verdict or decision is rendered, and to be made in writing are mandatory; and, in the absence of a showing that the party filing said motion has been unavoidably prevented from doing so within the time fixed by statute, this court will not consider errors occurring at the trial.
    Error from District Court, Grady County; Will Linn, Judge.
    Action to quiet title by Ethel D. Cawdell against C. B. Clark and others. Judgment for plaintiff!, motion for new trial overruled, and defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    McClure & Castell, for plaintiffs in error.
    Bond, Melton & Melton, for defendant in error.
   OWEN, C. J.

This action was brought by Ethel D. Cawdell against plaintiffs in error to quiet title in certain described premises ini Grady county. Judgment was entered in her favor on the 11th day of January, 1918. Counsel for plaintiffs in error at that time suggested the record might show a motion for new trial filed as of that date and overruled, exceptions allowed, and an extension of time given in which to prepare and serve case-made. This entry was made, but in truth and in fact no motion for new trial was filed until the 26th day of March, 1918. The grounds assigned for new trial are on account of errors alleged to have Occurred during the trial.

The motion not having been filed within three days, as required by the statute (section 5035, R. L. 1910) the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed on authority of Ronne v. Hirsh, 71 Okla. -, 178 Pac. 88, and Ewert v. Wills, 72 Okla. -, 178 Pac. 87.

All the Justices concur, except SHARP and HARRISON, JJ., not participating.  