
    (106 So. 67)
    PIATT et al. v. HILTY.
    (6 Div. 696.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Aug. 4, 1925.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1925.)
    Appeal and error <&wkey;72l(J) — Joint assignment of error, claiming error as to one defendant, not considered on appeal.
    On appeal by two defendants, a joint assignment of error, claiming error as to one defendant in trial court’s refusal to give general charge requested, cannot be considered on appeal, because under such assignment the claimed error could not have injured the defendant not entitled to affirmative instructions.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John Denson, Judge.
    Action for damages by Mena A. Hilty against D. A. Piatt and M. A. Piatt. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    R. J. McClure, of Birmingham, for appellants.
    Counsel discuss questions on the merits of the case, but in view of the decision it is not necessary that brief be here set out.
    Black & Harris, of Birmingham, for appellee.
    Where errors are jointly assigned by appellants, to he available to any injury must be shown to all. Sloss Co. v. Taylor, 16 Ala. App. 241. 77 So. 79; Birmingham Finance Co. v. Barber, 19 Ala. App. 609, 99 So. 736.
   SAMFORD, J.

The judgment is against two defendants; both appeal. There is a joint assignment of error. The assignment claims error in that the trial court refused to give the general charge as requested in writing as to one defendant. This could not have injured the defendant who was not entitled to affirmative instructions. As presented, we cannot consider the assignment. Birmingham Finance Co. v. Barber, 19 Ala. App. 609, 99 So. 736; S. S. S. & I. Co. v. Taylor, 16 Ala. App. 241, 77 So. 79; 13 Mich. Dig. 134, par. 721 (1).

The foregoing being the only error argued in brief, and there being no error apparent on the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      <®=»Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     