Tomblin v. Ball

46 Iowa 190
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided June 11, 1877·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Rothrook, J.

i. practice courtfassignrors. ° ei~ I. There is but one assignment of error.. It is in these w'ords: “The court erred in rendering judgment for the appellee.” It is objected that the assignment is too general and should be disregarded. We think the objection, well taken. It is impossible to determine from this assignment, without reference to the argument of counsel, the particular error of which complaint is made. “An assignment of error need follow no stated form, but must in a way as specific as the case will allow, point out the very error objected to. * * * * * * The court will only regard errors which are assigned with the required exactness.” Code, Sec. 3207.

We are the more ready to enforce the rule in this case because, in our opinion, the objection made to the judgment in the argument is not well taken. It is insisted that the judgment is contrary to the evidence. We think otherwise.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tomblin v. Ball, 46 Iowa 190 (iowa 1877).

46 Iowa 190 (Tomblin v. Ball) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Creager v. Johnson Bros.
86 N.W. 275 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Brewster v. ChiCago & Northwestern Railway Company.
114 Iowa 144 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Casey v. Ballou Banking Co.
67 N.W. 98 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1896)
Guyer v. Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co.
97 Iowa 132 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1896)
Feister v. Kent
60 N.W. 493 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1894)
Hamilton Buggy Co. v. Iowa Buggy Co.
55 N.W. 496 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1893)
Smola v. McCaffrey
50 N.W. 16 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1891)
Giltrap v. Watters
41 N.W. 600 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1889)
Albrosky v. Iowa City
41 N.W. 23 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1888)
Betts v. City of Glenwood
2 N.W. 1012 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1879)