The opinion
COCHRAN, J.
The plaintiff in ¡error states in its brief that the only specification of error which it desires to present is “that the trial court- erred in instructing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.’’ '
A-u examination of the record disch sos that a motion for a new (rial was filed in this .case, but the alleged error in instructing a verdict for the defendant was not presented in the, motion for a new trial. Tins court has repeatedly held that it will not review a decision of .the trial court in directing a verdict un’ess the same is presented to the trial court by a motion for. new trial. Brown & Bridgeman v. Western Casket Company, 3 Okla. 144 , 120 Pac. 1001 ; Board of Com’rs. of Beaver County v. Langston et al., 41 Okla. 715 , 139 Pac. 956 ; Ardmore Oil & Milling Co. v. Doggett Grain Co., 32 Okla. 280 , 122 Pac. 241 ; Stump v. Porter et al., 31 Okla. 157 , 120 Pac. 639 .
The action of the trial -court in directing a verdict not having been presented in the motion for new trial, this court will not review the alleged error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
All the Justices concur.