
    The School Town of Shirley City et al. v. Maumee School Township.
    [No. 4,019.
    Filed December 19, 1901.]
    Appeal and Error. — Joint Assignment of Error. — No question is presented by a joint assignment of error upon the action of the court in overruling a demurrer to an answer, where but one of the appellants demurred thereto, p. 181.
    
    
      .Same. — Joint Assignment of Error. — Conclusions of Law. — To render a joint assignment of error by two appellants upon two separate conclusions of law available on appeal, both conclusions must be bad as to both appellants, p. 121.
    
    Appeal and Error. — Conclusions of Law. — Exception.—The proper method of questioning a conclusion of law is by an exception, and. not by motion to modify, p. 121.
    
    Erom Allen Superior Court; W. J. Vesey, Judge.
    Action by Maumee School Township against School Town of Shirley City and others. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      W. Gr. Golerick, for appellants.
    
      W. P. Breen and J. Morris, Jr., for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The School Town of Shirley City and Robert B. Shirley have jointly assigned errors, and appelleeargues that the questions discussed by appellants’ counsel are not presented. The School Town of Shirley City filed a cross-complaint which appellee answered in two paragraphs,, to the second of which the School Town of Shirley City alone demurred. The court’s action in overruling this demurrer is not presented by the joint assignment of error.

It is also assigned as error that the court erred in its conclusions of law. There were two separate conclusions of law and under the assignment both must be bad as to both appellants. It is not claimed that the first conclusion of law is in any way -erroneous as to one of the appellants. The proper method of questioning a conclusion of law is by an exception, and not by a motion to modify.

The -other errors assigned not having been argued are waived.

Judgment affirmed.  