Case Name: A. H. JOHNSON v. A. R. FANNO
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1893-02-27
Citations: 23 Or. 514
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. H. JOHNSON v. A. R. FANNO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
[Decided February 27, 1893;
rehearing denied July 13, 1893.]
A. H. JOHNSON v. A. R. FANNO.
[S. C. 32 Pac. Rep. 396.]
Notice of Appeal — Assignment of Eeeoe — -Code, § 537. — An assignment of error which reads “ Error of the court at the trial of this cause in admitting testimony offered by the plaintiff and objected to by the defendant,” or “Error of the court, committed at the trial of this cause, in giving instructions to the jury which were excepted to by the defendant, and the exception allowed,” does not specify the error committed, or state the reason why it was error; it is insufficient to present any question for review.
Washington County; Frank J. Taylor, Judge.
Action by A. H. Johnson against A. R. Fanno to recover possession of real property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Thomas H. Tongue, Baleigh Stott, and S. B. Huston, for Appellant.
William W. Thayer and Bichard Williams, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and against the defendant, in an action to recover possession of real property. The assignments of error in the notice of appeal are as follows: "1. Error of the court, committed at the trial of this cause, in admitting testimony offered by the plaintiff, and objected to by the defendant. 2. Error of the court, committed at the trial of this cause, in excluding testimony offered on behalf of the defendant, and objected to by the plaintiff. 3. Error of the court, committed at the trial of this cause, in giving instructions to the jury and which were excepted to by defendant, and the exception allowed. 4. Other errors apparent upon the face of the record." Under the rule announced by this court in the recent cases of Herbert v. Dufur, 23 Or. 462 (32 Pac. Rep. 302), and Archbishop v. Hack, 23 Or. 536 (32 Pac. Rep. 402), each of these assignments of error is manifestly insufficient and does not present any question for review in this court, and the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.