PATTERSON OIL CO. v. BRODHEAD

PATTERSON OIL CO. v. BRODHEAD. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. November 5, 1924.) No. 4367. 1. Appeal amf error <@=>544(1)—Without bill of exceptions, motion for continuance and ruling thereon not considered on appeal. Without bill of exceptions, motion for continuance and court’s ruling thereon cannot be considered on appeal. 2. Appeal and error <@=>684(2)—Denial of motion for continuance not reviewabie, in absence of showing facts alleged as grounds for motion were admitted or proved. Denial of motion for continuance could not be reviewed on appeal, where record did not indicate that facts alleged as grounds for motion were admitted or proved. In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; Edward R. Meek, Judge. Action by Susan B. Brodhead against the Patterson Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. E. J. Miller, of Brownwood, Tex. (Jenkins & Miller, of Brownwood, Tex., on the brief), for plaintiff in error. H. E. Jackson, of San Angelo, Tex. (Collins & Jackson, of San Angelo, Tex., on the brief), for defendant in error. Before WALKER and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. What is relied on as the ground for reversing - the judgment in this case is the action of the court in overruling a motion for a continuance made by the plaintiff in error, tho defendant below. The record contains no bill of exceptions. Without a bill of exceptions, the motion for a continuance and the court’s ruling thereon are not properly presented for consideration by an appellate court. Furthermore, the record before us does not in any way indicate that the facts alleged in the motion as grounds for a continuance were admitted or proved. For aught that in any way is disclosed, the ruling complained of may have resulted from a finding of the nonexistence of the facts alleged on the motion. The record shows no error. The judgment is affirmed.