
    Johnson et al. v. Blair.
    [No. 4,698.
    Filed February 18, 1904.]
    Appeal and Error. — Joint Assignment of Error. — -A joint assignment of error by three defendants based upon the ruling of the court upon a separate demurrer of one of the defendants, and upon a separate motion for a new trial by the same defendant, presents no question.
    Erom Q-rant Circuit Court; H. J. Paulus, Judge.
    Action by James M. Johnson and others against James II. Blair. Prom a judgment in favor .of defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      Foster Davis and V. W. Davis, for appellants.
    
      A. R. Long, for appellee.
   Henley, C. J.

Appellant has assigned error: (1) The trial court erred in overruling the demurrer to the complaint; (2) the trial court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The appellants are James Johnson, David O. Ice, and John E. Jones, and they have jointly assigned error.

It appears from the record that the demurrer, to the overruling of which appellants complained, was a separate demurrer of J ames Johnson, and that the motion for a new trial, to the overruling of which appellants have excepted, was the separate motion of appellant James Johnson. The assignment of error, for this reason, does not present any question. Appellants, David O. Ice and John E. Jones, could not be affected by any ruling of the trial court on a demurrer or motion for a new trial submitted separately by James Johnson. Goss v. Wallace, 140 Ind. 541; Armstrong v. Dunn, 143 Ind. 433; McFarland v. Pierce, 151 Ind. 546; Hatfield v. Cummings, 152 Ind. 280; Green v. Heaston, 154 Ind. 127; Sheeks v. State, ex rel., 156 Ind. 508; Killian v. State, ex rel., 15 Ind. App. 261; Board, etc., v. Fraser, 19 Ind. App. 520; Stephens v. Smith, 27 Ind. App. 507.

Judgment affirmed.  