
    George Harned v. Harvey & Keith.
    [Abstract Kentucky Law Reporter, Vol. 3-537.]
    Assignment of Errors on Appeal.
    A signed statement on the record that “The defendant * * * conies now and assigns for errors, and excepts to the whole of the judgment rendered in this case,” does not constitute an assignment of errors, since it fails to specify the particular errors on which he means to rely, as provided by Civ. Code (1876), § 756.
    APPEAL FROM BRECKINRIDGE CIRCUIT COURT.
    
      James G. Haswell, for appellant.
    
    
      P. B. Muir, for appellees.
    
    January 24, 1882.
   Opinion by

Judge Hines :

We can not consider the questions made by counsel for appellant, because there is no assignment of errors.

Civil Code (1876), § 756, provides: “Every appellant or cross-appellant must, by his assignment of errors, specify the particular errors on which he means to rely; and no others shall be alleged by the party or examined into by the court.”

The attempted assignment of error found in the record is as follows: “The defendant, Harned, comes now and assigns for errors, and excepts to the whole of the judgment rendered in this case.” This amounts to no more than an exception to the judgment, and to consider the record upon such an assignment would in effect abrogate the section of the code quoted.

Judgment affirmed.  