
    Dinning v. Bement.
    1. Practice in the Supreme Court: failure to argue errors assigned. Where errors assigned are not argued, they will be deemed waived.
    
      Appeal from Bremer District Gov/rt.
    
    Saturday, June 19.
    This action is brought upon a promissory note for $550, upon which is indorsed a payment of $50. The defense pleaded is a want of consideration. There was a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $610, and $35 attorney^ fee. The defendant appeals.
    No argument for tlie appellant.
    
      Gray, Dougherty <& Gibson, for appellee.
   Day, J.

The appellant has assigned five errors, but has not favored us with any argument. We have repeatedly held that errors assigned, but not argued, are regarded as waived, and will not be considered. It is absolutely necessary to the proper disposition of business in this court that this rule should be adhered, to. We the more readily apply this rule to the present case from the fact that a careful perusal of the abstract discloses no error which should reverse the case. The defense interposed and relied upon seems to us to be altogether lacking in probability, and it is not unlikely that this is the reason we have been asked to invent arguments to support the assignments of error, unaided by the investigations of counsel. The judgment is

Affirmed.  