
    McCullough, Appellant, v. Clawson.
    
      Appeals — Assignments of error — Assignments not self-sustaining —Duplicity.
    
    Assignments of error which, are not self-sustaining do not conform to the rules, and will not be considered.
    An assignment of error objecting to the dismissal of all of the exceptions is bad for duplicity.
    Argued Nov. 22, 1917.
    Appeal, No. 84, Oct. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from order of C. P. Indiana Co., March T., 1916, No. 84, dismissing exceptions to auditor’s report in case of George W. McCullough v. William H. Claw-son.
    Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler and Williams, JJ.
    Appeal quashed.
    Exceptions to report, of James L. Jack, Esq., auditor.
    Before Langham, P. J.
    The record showed that nine exceptions were filed to the auditor’s report. All of them were dismissed.
    
      Errors assigned were:
    (1) In confirming the auditor’s report.
    (2) In approving of the facts found by the auditor from the testimony taken by him.
    (3) In confirming the auditor’s conclusions of law.
    (4-10) In finding or not finding certain matters stated, without setting forth the exceptions to the auditor’s report, or rulings on the exceptions.
    (11) In dismissing the exceptions filed to the findings of facts and conclusions of law in his report, as shown by order dated February 6, 1917, “the exceptions to the auditor’s distribution, as shown by the within schedule of distribution having been argued in open' court, upon due consideration thereof, the Court approves the learned auditor’s findings of facts and conclusions of law and orders and directs that the exceptions be dismissed and the report of the auditor be confirmed absolutely.”
    March 2, 1918:
   Opinion by

Williams, J.,

The amount involved in this appeal is less than $1,500. February 24, 1917, appeal was made to the Supreme Court. No specifications of error were filed there, and no attempt made to perfect the appeal. October 26,1917, appellant asked to have the case certified to the Superior Court, The assignments of error do not conform to our rules. Ten of them are not self-sustaining, and the one quoting the order of the court and objecting to the dismissal of all the exceptions is bad for duplicity.

The appéal is quashed.  