Case Name: CODY v. BLACK
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1920-07-13
Citations: 97 Or. 343
Docket Number: 
Parties: CODY v. BLACK.
Judges: McBride, C. J., and Harris and Burnett, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 343–349

Head Matter:
Argued June 10,
affirmed July 13,
rehearing denied September 14, 1920.
CODY v. BLACK.
(191 Pac. 319; 192 Pac. 282.)
Appeal and Error — Assignments of Error — When Deemed Abandoned.
1. Assignments of error not referred to in appellant’s brief will be treated as abandoned.
Appeal and Error — Assignments of Error — Findings—Exceptions— Failure to Show.
2. Where the record fails to disclose that appellant excepted to findings of fact made the basis of assignments of error, or that he requested different findings and excepted to the court’s refusal to make them, such assignments cannot be considered.
Boundaries — Ejectment Action — Surveyor’s Plat — Evidence—Sufficiency.
3. In an ejectment aetion, admission in evidence of a surveyor’s plat held not incompetent, notwithstanding it did not appear that the surveyor had made a test of his instruments, and his chain; such facts going merely to the weight of the evidence.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Boundaries — Private Surveyor may Testify to' a Line as Surveyed by Him.
4. A private surveyor may testify to a line as relocated by him, he being a person having the qualifications for a witness prescribed by Section 731, L. O. L., the only difference between him and a county surveyor, under Sections 2976, 2978, being that the county surveyor may make a record, which, if conforming to the statute, may be introduced, without its author being called as a witness.
Evidence — Common Knowledge That Solar Compass Is More Accurate Than Magnetic Compass.
5. It is common knowledge that a solar compass is more accurate than the magnetic compass in determining courses and distances.
Boundaries — Surveyor may Testify to Knowledge Acquired Through Solar Compass.
(5. That a surveyor’s knowledge as to a line was acquired through use of a solar compass, that is, an improved method, is no ground for excluding his testimony.
From Douglas: James W. Hamilton, Judge.
Department 1.
This is an action in ejectment. The complaint alleges that plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession of the west one half of the southeast quarter of section 24, township 29 south, range 4 west of Willamette Meridian, and that defendant wrongfully withholds possession thereof.
The answer denies that defendant is in possession of the land. The real purpose of the action is to establish the true boundary line between plaintiff’s land, above described, and defendant’s land, which is the west one half of the northeast quarter of the same section.
By stipulation, there was a trial by the court without a jury, which resulted in findings and a judgment in favor of plaintiff, from which defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Oliver P. Coshow.
For respondent there was a brief over the name of Messrs'. ’Bice S Orcutt, with an oral argument by Mr. Dexter Bice.

Opinion:
BENSON, J.
Defendant's assignments of error numbered 2, 3, 4 and 5, challenge the correctness of the court's rulings in admitting certain testimony-over defendant's objections. None of these assignments is referred to in defendant's briefs, and we must therefore treat them as waived and abandoned: Donohoe v. Portland Ry. Co., 56 Or. 58 (107 Pac. 964).
Assignments numbered 5 and 6, charge error in the making of findings of fact numbered 2 and 5. However, the record fails to disclose that defendant excepted to either of these findings, or that he requested different findings and excepted to the refusal of the court to make them. It follows that they cannot be considered upon this appeal: Tatum v. Massie, 29 Or. 140 (44 Pac. 494); Cassity v. Wilson, 76 Or. 595 (149 Pac. 1018).
This brings us to assignment of error numbered 1, which is:
"The court erred in overruling defendant's objections to the testimony of the witness Frear, and the admission into the evidence of the case of the plat made by said Frear, showing the result of his survey of the premises involved: Bill of Exceptions, pp. 1, 2, 3 and 4."
An examination of the bill of exceptions shows the objections to have been directed to the admission of the plat made by the witness, based upon the ground that in making the survey, of which the plat is an exemplification, it is not shown that he had made a test of his instrument or of his chain. The witness testified that the plat was made from the field-notes of his actual survey upon the ground, and that it was in every way accurate and correct. Under these conditions it was clearly competent, and the absence of tests of his instruments and his chain would go only to its weight and value; a subject with which, in the face of the findings, this court cannot be concerned.
Rehearing denied September 14, 1920.
On petition for rehearing.
Petition Denied.
Mr. Oliver P. Coshow, for the petition.
Messrs. Bice & Orcutt, contra.
Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
McBride, C. J., and Harris and Burnett, JJ., concur.