The controversy in this case arises out of the sale of lands by the defendant in error, as administrator, to pay debts of the deceased, John B. Wilson. The administrator obtained an order from the District court, sitting for the trial of matters of probate, for the sale of certain lands inventoried as the property of the estate, or in which the estate had an interest. The plaintiff in error filed exceptions to the order of sale, setting up that she was the owner of a one-fourth interest of a certain oiie hundred and sixty-acre tract of said land, and praying that such order of sale be set aside and an order made protecting her interests. The sale was proceeded with and reported by the administrator to the court for confirmation. The court confirmed the sale so far as the same was not objected to, and referred the matter of plaintiff in error’s exceptions to the commissioner of the court to hear the evidence, reduce it to writing and report the same to the court for its further determination. In the meantime the administrator demurred to the exceptions as insufficient in law to defeat the confirmation of the sale. The commissioner reported, finding that the land was legally sold and recommending that the sale be confirmed “conveying all the right, title and interest of said estate.” The court thereupon made an order confirming the sale of the land in question, reciting that it had examined the return of the administrator and heard the testimony of witnesses in support thereof, reciting also the report of the commissioner and his recommendation that the sale be confirmed and finding that due notice of the sale had been given.

So far as appears from the record, no exception was taken to this order. It was in effect the overruling of her exceptions, or objections, and was the final order determining *357her claim and her rights in the proceeding; and in the absence of any exception to the decision of the court, there is nothing for this court to pass upon.

But, further, there is no bill of exceptions and none of the evidence, which it appears was heard by the commissioner and by the court,'is in the record. The claim of plaintiff in error is that she is the daughter and heir at law of one Marinda Wilson, the wife of the deceased, whose death preceded his; that her mother was the owner of an undivided half interest in the one hundred and sixty-acre tract mentioned, and that the plaintiff in error inherited from her the one-fourth interest which is in question in this case. But there is no evidence in the record whatever tending to establish such relationship or that plaintiff in error is such heir at law. It is, therefore, we think, entirely clear that no claim, depending upon such relationship, is before this court for its consideration.

Counsel for plaintiff in error states in his brief, however, that the facts are conceded, among others, that, at her death, Marinda Wilson left surviving her, as her heirs at law, the deceased, John B. Wilson, and the plaintiff in error, her only child by her former husband. But defendant in error has filed no brief in this court, there is no finding of such facts by the District Court, and there is no admission of the facts by any pleading of defendant in error, or otherwise, so far as appears in the record, unless it be contended that they are admitted by the demurrer to plaintiff in error’s exceptions. The demurrer was not specifically ruled upon by the District Court. Indeed it does not appear to have been filed in court, as it bears the file mark of the commissioner and not of the clerk. And the commissioner reports that he sustains the demurrer, thus indicating that he looked upon it as submitted to himself for final determination and not to the court. But, as it is found among the papers transmitted to this court, it is perhaps fair to presume that it was returned into court as part of his report, and it may have received the court’s attention. But, in any view of it, the de*358murrer must be deemed to have been overruled by the court, as it appears affirmatively from the record that the matter was determined upon a hearing of the evidence, and the facts were found adversely to the claim of the plaintiff in error. In no view of the record, therefore, can the demurrer be deemed an admission of the facts upon which plaintiff in error relies for a reversal of the final order of the District Court. The procedure in probate matters is necessarily very informal, and this court would be slow to determine any question, arising in the exercise of the probate jurisdiction of the District Court, upon any strict or technical construction of pleadings. But, under the most liberal construction and as matter of substance, it is evident that this record presents no question for our consideration.

It must also be understood that we do not decide that the District Court has adjudicated, or that it had any power to adjudicate, in this probate proceeding, the question of the title of the plaintiff in error to the land in question. As the petition in error must be dismissed upon the grounds mentioned, no consideration of that question is necessary or proper in this case, and we intimate no opinion upon the subject. The petition in error will be dismissed.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.

In this case the petition in error was dismissed upon the ground, among others, that no exception was taken in the District Court to the decision complained of, and that, therefore, the matter was not before us for determination. In his application for a rehearing counsel for plaintiff in error urges, upon the authority of Bank v. Buckingham, 12 O. St., 402; Koehler v. Ball, 2 Kan., 160, and other cases, that it is not necessary that exception should be taken to a final judgment in order to obtain a review of it in the appellate court.

Those cases are not authority for the proposition that, be*359cause there is a final judgment in the case and the object of the proceeding in error is to reverse or modify such judgment, therefore no exception need be preserved to the ruling complained of. In all cases there must have been a final judgment or order in the lower court before this court is authorized to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. But the decisions referred to go only to the proposition that when the error complained of is in the judgment itself, as distinguished from the proceedings in the trial, and the error is manifested by an examination of the record proper, such judgment may be corrected or pnodified by the appellate court, although no exception was noted in the trial court. The final judgment in this case is the one required by statute to be entered, and there is no complaint that it is unsupported or otherwise irregular or. defective. But the complaint is that the trial court erred in overruling the objections of plaintiff in error to the order of sale. It is clear that to have this ruling reviewed in the Supreme Court there must have been an exception to it. Plaintiff in error did not obtain from the court below a specific, separate ruling upon her objections, but the effect of the findings and judgment was to overrule them. And, as intimated in our opinion, it would seem that she might have saved the question by a proper exception to the judgment and findings. But, in any event, it would be strange if she could avoid the legal necessity of saving ah exception by suffering the case to go to final judgment without asking-the trial court for a specific ruling upon the questions involved. That would be to reverse the whole order of proceedings in this court and to demand its decision of questions because they were not presented or passed upon in the court below. The cases referred to are not authority for any such proposition.

Counsel also urges that the court heard no evidence except the written return of the administrator and the written report of the commissioner, and hence there was nothing to preserve in a bill of exceptions. But, if it .be conceded that such return and report are a part of the record without *360being brought in by bill of exceptions, yet one of the recitals in the final judgment is, “the court having examined the said return and heard the testimony of witnesses in support thereof,” etc. This very clearly indicates that additional evidence was heard, and, in any event, we have no certificate of the court, in any form, that all the evidence is before us.

A rehearing will be denied.

KNIGHT, J., and Pottur, J., concur.