Case ID: iowa_55/html/0366-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Rothrock, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barnhart v. Farr et al.
    1. Practice in the Supreme Court: exception. An exception to tlie conclusion of law upon which a judgment is based is the same for the purposes of appeal as an exception to the judgment itself.
    2. -: assignment oe errors. The provision of the statute requiring errors to be assigned bn an appeal in a law action is peremptory, and unless they are assigned the Supreme Court cannot consider the appeal.
    
      Appeal from Blade Howie Owouit Oov/rt.
    
    Friday, December 17.
    This is an action at law in which the plaintiff, "being publisher of a newspaper, seeks to recover of the defendant Farr, as sheriff, and of the other defendants as sureties on his official bond, certain printer’s fees for publishing a large number of sheriff’s sale notices, which fees, it is alleged, said Farr collected and appropriated to his own use.
    A jury was waived and a trial was had to the court. Judgment was rendered against defendant Farr, and the other defendants, his sureties, were by tbe judgment of the court held not liable to- tbe plaintiff. Tbe plaintiff appeals.
    
      Hasner db Van Orsdol, for appellant.
    
      Balee db Harmon, for appellees.
   Rothrock, J.

I. It is urged by counsel for appellees that tliis cause must be affirmed, because tbe record does not show there was any exception to the judgment rendered by tbe court below. An exception appears to have been taken to tbe conclusion of law from tbe facts found by tlie court, and we incline to think this was sufficient. The formal judgment was founded upon the conclusion of law which was excepted to.

II. It is contended that the appeal cannot be entertained because there is no assignment of errors. This point appears to us to be well taken. "We find nothing in the record which purports to be an assignment of errors. Counsel for appellant insists that no formal assignment is necessary because but one point is relied upon, and that is apparent from the record and argument- The statute is peremptory. Error must be assigned or we cannot entertain the appeal. Code, §§ 3183, 3207. Twogood & Elliott v. Reily, 48 Iowa, 546. Rules of practice prescribed by the statute, and by numerous decisions of this court, must be observed.

Affirmed.