
    Noonan v. Bell et al.
    [No. 19,867.
    Filed October 15, 1902.]
    Appeal and Error. — Assignment of Error. — Exception.—The action of the court in sustaining the separate demurrers of two defendants to plaintiff’s complaint involved two rulings, and in order to question such rulings on appeal an exception must be taken tc each.
    Erom Blackford Circuit Court; E. C. Vaughn, Judge.
    Action by William Noonan against George R. Bell and another for damages. Erom a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      O. W. Granor, Frank Mann, H. S. Fargo and T. A. Kegerries, for appellant.
    
      Enos Cole, W. H. Honey, S. W. Cantwell and L. B Simmons, for appellees.
   Gillett, J.

— This action was instituted by appellant to recover damages from appellees. The latter, by their respective counsel, severally demurred to the amended complaint for want of facts. After setting out the several demurrers mentioned, the record contains the following entry: “And the court, after being fully advised in the premises, sustains the separate demurrer of each defendant, to which ruling of the court the plaintiff at the time excepts.”

Each demurrer presented the question as to the sufficiency of the amended complaint as against the demurring defendant. The entry therefore involves two rulings. An exception must be directed against a designated ruling. It is not competent to reserve exceptions in gross. City of South Bend v. Turner, 156 Ind. 418, 54 L. R. A. 396, 83 Am. St. 200; Walter v. Walter, 117 Ind. 247; Johnson v. McCulloch, 89 Ind. 270; Leyner v. State, 8 Ind. 490; Wilson v. Wolfer, 8 Ind. 398; Elliott, App. Proc., §§787, 789. The assignments of error are all predicated on said rulings on demurrer,' and it therefore follows that there is no basis for an inquiry into the correctness of the judgment below.

Judgment affirmed.  