Case ID: or_23/html/0536-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[Decided February 27, 1893;
    rehearing denied July 13, 1893.]
    ARCHBISHOP v. HACK.
    Notice op Appead — Specification of Eeeok — Code, g 537.— It is not enough, under the Oregon Code, g 527, to state as an assignment of error that the trial court erred in admitting or rejecting certain testimony; the notice of appeal must specify in what the error consists, and the ground on which the appellant intends to rely for reversal. Otherwise the questions will not be oonsidered. State v. McKinnon, 8 Or. 485; North Pacific Terminal Co. v. Loewenberg, 11 Or. 286; Swift v. Mulkeg, 17 Or. 532; and Thompson y^.Life Ins..Co.. 21 Or. 466,.approved, and followed..
    
      Washington. County: Frank J. Taylor, Judge.
    Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Thos. H. Tongue, for Appellant.
    
      Bichard Williams, and S. B. Huston, for Respondent.
   Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover the possession of real property, and comes here on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The grounds of error upon which the appellant intends to rely in this court are assigned in the notice of appeal as follows: First, error of the court at the trial of this cause in admitting testimony and documents on behalf of plaintiff and objected to by defendant, to which ruling defendant excepted, and the exceptions were allowed; second, error of the court in excluding evidence and testimony offered by defendant, upon objections of plaintiff, to which ruling defendant excepted, and the exceptions were allowed; third, error of the court in instructing the jury, to which instructions defendant excepted, and the exceptions were allowed; fourth, other errors apparent upon the face of the record.

Under the rule repeatedly announced by this court, and as has often been said, these assignments of error are insufficient to present any question for consideration in this court: Herbert v. Dufur, 23 Or. 462; State v. McKinnon, 8 Or. 485; North Pacific Terminal Co. v. Loewenberg, 11 Or. 286 (3 Pac. Rep. 683); Swift v. Mulkey, 17 Or. 532 (21 Pac. Rep. 871); and Thompson v. Life Ins. Co. 21 Or. 466 (28 Pac. Rep. 628).

The judgment must be affirmed.