
    (76 South. 853)
    CARNEY v. M. C. KISER CO.
    (2 Div. 648.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Nov. 15, 1917.)
    Appeal and Ebbob <&wkey;724(l) — Assignments of Ebbob — Requisites. ■
    No question is presented for review on appeal from a decree in equity where the appellant fails to state concisely in writing of what the error complained of consists, as required by rule 1 (Code 1907, p. 1506), or to write the assignment upon the transcript or to identify the error, unless the error goes to the whole decree.
    <®=»For other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Choctaw County; Thomas H. Smith, Judge.
    Suit between D, M. Carney and the M. C. Kiser Company. From the decree rendered, Carney appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Gray & Dansby, of Butler, and C. R. Gavin, of Laurel, Miss., for appellant
    Wm. D. Dunn, of Grove Hill, for appellee.
   THOMAS, J.

We find no assignment or ■errors on the record. The statutory requirements are (1) that appellant state concisely in writing in what the error complained of consists (Code 1907, rule 1, p. 1506); (2) that the assignment must be written upon the transcript; that it need not be signed by counsel, though it is more regular in form if so signed (Amerson v. Corona Coal & Iron Co., 194 Ala. 175, 69 South. 601); (3) that the ruling or error complained of must appear on the page of the record as indicated in the assignment of error, or he otherwise sufficiently identified. If it is not thus sufficiently identified it does not invoke review of any particular ruling. Crews & Green v. Parker, 192 Ala. 383, 387, 68 South. 287.

Of the sufficiency of an assignment of error in equity cases, this court has recently declared:

“As early as Brahan v. Collins, Minor, 169, this court declined to accept, as the requisite specification of error, a general undesignating assertion of error by an appellant. The only relaxation the practice has had is in equity cases, where the error relied on affected the whole decree. Robinson v. Murphy, 69 Ala. 543, 546.” Kinnon, as Adm’r, v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 187 Ala. 480, 482, 65 South. 397; Dickens v. Dickens, 174 Ala. 345, 351, 56 South. 809.

As a result of the failure to comply with the rule governing the assignment of errors, no question is here presented for determination. The decree of the chancery court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and MAYFIELD and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.  