
    Purswell v. Brooks.
    
      Bill in Equity to Enforce Vendor's Lien.
    
    1. Failure to assign errors; case affirmed. —where an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court, in a chancery case, the decree of the chancellor will be affirmed if there is no assignment of errors.
    Appeal from the Chancery Court of Dale.
    Heard, before the Hon. N. S. Gbaham.
    The bill in this case was filed by Esau Brooks, appellee, against Gabriel Purswell. The averments of the bill are, that in the winter of 1887-8, said Brooks sold and conveyed to Purswell certain lands, executing his deed therefor, and turning over the possession to said Purswell. In payment of said land, said Purswell executed two promissory notes, upon which a number of payments have been made; that said conveyance was the sole consideration of the notes, of which the following are copies, showing the payments made:
    “$750. On or before the first day of January next, I promise to pay E. Brooks, or bearer, the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, for a certain piece of land known as the (here the land is described by metes and bounds), in Dale county, Alabama. This, third day of February, 1868.
    G. Pubswell.”
    “Received on the within note one hundred bushels of corn, @ $1.00 per bushel, $100.00; 25th October, 1869. 2,072 lbs. lint cotton, @ 25 cents per pound, $518.50; 25th November, 1869. From the hands of Win. Bateman, April 15, 1872, one hundred and sixty dollars. From Win. Wise, on sixth of May, 1870, thirty-eight dollars.”
    “$750. By the first of January next, I promise to pay E. Brooks, or bearer, the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars, for a certain piece of land known as the (here the land is described). This, 18th day of November, 1867.
    G. Pubswell.”
    “Received on the within note one hundred dollars, part in corn and part in money, first January, 1868; one hundred dollars on third of February, 1868; fifty dollars first April, 1868; fifty dollars on 22d April, 1868; fifty dollars on 26th Feb. 1869; one hundred and seventy-eight and 22-100 dollars on 26th March, 1869; of J. K. Thompson, eleven and 50-100 dollars, 20th March, 1873.”
    
      The bill prayed to have the notes declared a lien upon the land, and, if necessary, that the property be sold for the payment thereof.
    The said Purswell filed his answer to the bill, admitting several of the allegations of the bill, and alleging certain additional payments on said notes, which are not credited, and denying that any more is due upon said notes; and also interposed the plea that “ the said notes upon which this action is founded, are usurious and void for the interest due thereon.”
    The Chancellor rendered his decree granting the relief prayed in the bill. No assignment of errors seems to have been made.
    Milligan & Blackman, for appellants.
    Caemichael & Mauldin, contra.
    
   STONE, J.

The present case must be affirmed for want of an assignment of errors. ,

We have looked through the record, and are satisfied the notes are not tainted with usury. The thirty bushels corn, and twenty dollars cash, are satisfactorily explained. As to the disallowance of an alleged additional payment, we are in doubt, even if it were presented by an assignment of error, whether the testimony convinces us that the register erred in its rejection. But, as we have said, there is no assignment of errors, and the decree of the chancellor must be affirmed on that ground.  