
    Blumberger, Appellant, v. Bernot.
    
      Appeals — Assignments of error — Filing with prothonotan-y — Evidence — Rules 22, 26 and 60.
    
    An appeal will be dismissed where the assignments of error have not been filed with the prothonotary as required by Bule 60.
    An assignment of error which includes more than one bill of exception violates Buie 22.
    An assignment of error to the admission of exhibits will not be considered, where they were neither objected to when admitted nor made the subject of motions to strike out.
    When the court overrules an objection to a question put to a witness, an assignment of error to such ruling which fails to set forth the answer to the question, violates Buie 26.
    Argued April 14,1926.
    Appeal No. 34, April T., 1926, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Indiana County, September T., 1924, No. 120, in the case of I. Blumberger v. Josef Biernot.
    Before Por,ter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler,, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop, and Cunningham, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Judgment by confession opened and case tried. Before Langham, P. J.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
    Verdict for defendant and judgment thereon. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were the various rulings on evidence and the charge of the court.
    
      
      John L. Getty, for appellant.
    
      E. Walker Smith, for appellee.
    April 30, 1926:
   Per Curiam,

Appellant had judgment lagainst defendant by confession; it was opened to permit a defense to be made; on the trial of the issue, the jury found for defendant; plaintiff has appealed from judgment on the verdict.

The conclusion we have reached after considering the briefs and the record renders it unnecessary to enlarge upon the matters there presented. The appeal must be dismissed because no assignments of error were ever filed with the Prothonotary of this court; Bule 60 requires that they be filed. Assignments of error constitute the substantial pleading left in this court iafter the record is returned to the court below: Landis v. Evans, 113 Pa. 332.

We have nevertheless examined the assignments printed in the brief, but may not sustain them. The first complains of the admission severally of four exhibits, in violation of Buie 22 which prohibits the grouping of more than one bill of exceptions in one assignment; and when we turned ’to the record we found that several of the exhibits complained of in the assignment were neither objected to when admitted nor made the subject of motions to strike out.

The second assignment fails to comply with Buie 26; it complains that the court overruled appellant’s objection to a question put to a witness. The answer is not given in the assignment as it should have been, nor is any answer to the question found on the pages of the record referred to in the assignment.

The third assignment, a general complaint against the charge, is made the basis of an argument in the brief that the charge was ‘ ‘ misleading and erroneons ’ ’; we are not impressed with the argument.

While we have considered the case as indicated, we dismiss the appeal for failure to file (assignments of error.

Appeal dismissed.  