
    Bill v. Klaus.
    1. Assignments oe error — held too general.
    Only those errors which are specifically assigned will be considered in the appellate court; and where they are of such a general character and indefinite nature as to necessitate an examination of the whole case to ascertain the point presented in the argument, they will be disregarded. Territory v. Stone, 2 Dak. 355, cited and followed.
    Filed October 4, 1886.
    Appeal from the district court of Stutsman county.
    Plaintiff and defendant were sued by one Barnes for taking certain oats from Barnes’ land by mistake, and judgment for the value of the oats recovered, which was paid by this plaintiff. The oats so taken were appropriated by defendant Klaus. Plaintiff Bill brings this action to recover from Klaus the amount paid to Barnes on the judgment, being the value of the oats so received and appropriated by Klaus. On the trial the facts were all conceded, by admissions in the pleadings and oral admissions made and entered in open court. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    Assignnment of error in the record are as follows:
    ASSIGNMENT OP ERRORS.
    And the appellant herein says there is manifest error in this:
    First — The judgment is against the weight of the entire evidence given on the trial.
    Second — The judgment is entirely unsupported by the evidence given on said trial.
    Third — On the whole evidence given the defendant was not entitled to recover a judgment.
    Fourth — The judgment is contrary to law upon the facts proved on said trial.
    Fifth — The judge erred in not giving and rendering judgment in favor of plaintiff for the amount claimed by him.
    Sixth- — There was no evidence to support any judgment for damages against this plaintiff.
    
      Seventh — The judge erred in not rendering and giving judgment for plaintiff when asked on the pleadings in the case.
    
      W. E. Dodge, and Johnson & McJceus, for appellants.
    
      White & Hewitt, for respondent.
   L. K. Church, J.

After a full consideration I am of the opinion that judgment should be affirmed, even if the assignment of errors were held to be sufficient to allow the appeal to be examined. The assignment of errors is broad and general, and presents no question for review. Only those errors which are specifically assigned will be considered in the supreme court; and, where they are of such a general character and indefinite'nature as to necessitate an examination of the, whole case to ascertain the point presented in the ai’gument; they will be disregarded. Territory v. Stone, 2 Dak. 155; S. C. 4 N. W. Rep. 697; Rule 16, Supreme Court.

The errors should be so distinctly pointed out that there can be no room for discussion as to whether the errors assigned are specifically stated or not.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.  