
    Submitted ou briefs May 7,
    affirmed June 6, 1917.
    KING v. OREGON SHORT LINE R. CO.
    (165 Pac. 349.)
    Appeal and. Error — Abstract of Record — Assignments of Error — Necessity for.
    1. Where the abstract on appeal contains no assignments of error and the complaint states a cause of action, questions discussed in appellant’s brief will not be considered.
    From Malheur: Dalton Biggs, Judge.
    Action by Arthur S. King against the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, a corporation. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed.
    Submitted on briefs under the proviso of Supreme Court Rule 18: 56 Or. 622 (117 Pac. xi).
    Affirmed.
    In Banc. Statement by Mr. Justice McCamant.
    This is an action brought to recover the value of a cow alleged to have been killed by the defendant’s negligence. The action was brought originally in a Justice Court in Malheur County. The defendant took the case on appeal to the Circuit Court, where the case was tried de novo and a verdict was recovered by plaintiff for seventy-five dollars, interest and costs. Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on this verdict.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. George H. Smith, Mr. H. B. Thompson and Mr. William E. Lees.
    
    For respondent there was a brief submitted by Mr. Leslie J. Aker.
    
   Mr. Justice McCamant

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff calls attention to the absence of assignments of error in the abstract on appeal. Under the authority of Salene v. Isherwood, 74 Or. 35, 39 (144 Pac. 1175), and Dundas v. Grand View Land Co., 79 Or. 379, 380 (155 Pac. 365), this condition of the record precludes the consideration of the questions discussed in appellant’s brief. We find that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.  