Case ID: ind-app_27/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Black, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Davis et al. v. Seybold.
    [No. 3,859.
    Filed October 30, 1901.]
    Appeal and Error. — Assignment of Error. — Exceptions.—Available error cannot be predicated upon a joint assignment of error upon the conclusions of law, where the appellants did not join in exceptions to the conclusions of law. pp. BIO, 511.
    
    
      Same. — Assignment of Error. — Exceptions.—Where appellants separately excepted “to the first, second, and third conclusions of law,” but did not except to each conclusion, or to any one of them singly, an assignment of error as to a single conclusion cannot be recognized. pp. 510, 611.
    
    From Hamilton Circuit Court; J. F. Neal, Judge.
    ' Action by Géorge Seybold against John T. Davis and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      I. W. Christian, W. 8. Christian and E. E. Cloe, for appellants.
    
      W. T. Whittington, W. A. Whittington, 8. D. 8tua/rf and C. G. Reagan, for appellee.
   Black, C. J.

— The appellee sued the appellants, John T. Davis and Cornelius Oder. One Osear J. Roberts also was a defendant, as to whom the cause was continued for process. The court rendered a special finding, and of the four conclusions of law stated upon the facts specially found, counsel for appellants have discussed the first three. The appellants jointly assigned error in two specifications, one relating to the first conclusion of law and the other to the third. The appellants did not join in exception to the conclusions, or any of them; therefore their joint assignment of error can not avail them or either of them. Each of the appellants also separately assigned errors, and in each of his specifications of error relating to the conclusions of law averred error as to a single one of the conclusions, and did not in any specification allege that the court erred in the first three conclusions; yet the appellants separately excepted “to the first, second, and third conclusions of law,” hut did not except to each conclusion or to any one of them singly.

The exception being joint as to the three conclusions, the assignment of error as to a single one of them can not he recognized.

Judgment affirmed.