
    DORCHESTER et al. v. LEWIS et al.
    No. 19520.
    Opinion Filed Sept. 18, 1928.
    (Syllabus.)
    1. Appeal and Error — Review—Necessity for Motion for New Trial and Record of Proceedings Thereoni.
    Error occurring during the trial cannot be considered by the Supreme Court, unless a motion for a new trial, founded upon and including such error, has been made by the complaining party, and acted upon by the trial court and its ruling excepted to, and afterwards assigned for error in the Supreme Court, where the issues of the case were made up by proper and sufficient pleadings.
    2. Same — Dismissal—Lack of Record of Final Order.
    A record which fails to contain a copy of the final order or judgment sought to be reviewed presents no question to this court for its determination, and the appeal will be dismissed .
    Error from District Court, Seminole County; George C. Crump.
    Action between J. M. Dorchester et al. and J. R. Lewis et al. Prom judgment in favor of the latter, and the action of the trial court denying relief from said judgment upon motion, the former appeal.
    Dismissed.
    
      Note. — See under (1) 3 C. J. p. 963, §850; p. 968. §864; p. 969, §865; p. 1389, §1536; 2 R. O. D. p. 127, 128: 4 R. O. L. Supp. 83. (2) 4 C. J. p. 95, §1698.
    Blanton, Osborn & Curtis, for plaintiffs’ in error.
    Phillips & Huggins, for defendants in error.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the district court of Seminole county.

Judgment was rendered for the plaintiffs and against the defendants on the 21st day of December, 1927. No motion for new trial was filed in said canse, but thereafter, on the 6th day of January, 1928, the defendants filed their motion ini said cause seeking relief from the terms of the judgment. No order is contained in the record setting forth the aetiomof the trial court on this motion; the only showing that this motion was disposed of in the trial court is in the reporter’s transcript of the proceedings at the hearing on the motion. The assignments of error In the petition in error bring into question the action of the trial court in rendering this judgment and its disposition of the motion filed in said cause on January 6th. No motion for new trial having been filed, the judgment rendered is hot brought before this court for review. Commercial Nat. Bank v. Trumbly, 56 Okla. 173, 155 Pac. 874; Eastwood v. Clinkscales, 82 Okla. 52, 197 Pac. 455; Buchanan v. Fant, 110 Okla. 206, 238 Pac. 962; Malleck v. Thomas, 109 Okla. 95. 234 Pac. 1107. Since the order showing the disposition by the trial court of the motion filed is not in the record, the action of the trial court thereon is not reviewable in this court. Smith v. Fash, 122 Okla. 104, 251 Pac. 496; Feterly v. Gage, 122 Okla. 229, 253 Pac. 499; Lillard v. Meisberger, 113 Okla. 228, 240 Pac. 1067; City of Tulsa v. Kay, 124 Okla. 243, 255 Pac. 684.

There being nothing before this court for review, the appeal is hereby dismissed.  