HEAD v. TEXAS RAWHIDE PAVING CO.

HEAD v. TEXAS RAWHIDE PAVING CO. Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. November 22, 1927. No. 4941. 1. Appeal and error <§=263(3) — Rulings refusing instructions, where not excepted to, are not reviewabie. Rulings of court in refusing instructions to jury are not subject to review, where not excepted to. 2. Trial <§=91 — Overruling of motion to strike out oral evidence admitted without objection held not error. Overruling of motion to strike out oral evidence admitted without objection, some of which was properly admissible, held not reversible error. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; James Clifton Wilson, Judge. Action by the Texas Rawhide Paving Company against J. W. Head. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. Mark McMahon, of Fort Worth, Tex. (Cantey, Hanger & McMahon, of Port Worth, Tex., on the brief), for plaintiff in error. Hugh B. Smith, of Port Worth, Tex. (Slay, Simon & Smith and Ogden K. Shannon, Jr., all of Port Worth, Tex., on the brief), for defendant in error. Before WALKER, BRYAN, and POSTER, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. A reversal is sought in this ease because of the overruling of a motion of the plaintiff in error, the defendant below, “to strike out all of the oral evidence,” and because of the action of the court in giving and refusing instructions to the jury. The last-mentioned rulings are not subject to be reviewed, because none of them was excepted to. The above-mentioned motion was made after the admission, without objection, so far as the record shows, of much ■oral evidence, some'at least of which was plainly admissible. Manifestly the overruling of that motion was not reversible error. No reversible error bein'g shown by the record, the judgment is affirmed.