
    [Decided January 25, 1888.]
    CATHERINE A. FRAZIER v. L. P. VENEN. SAME v. W. E. ANDERSON.
    Appeal — Dismissal—Assignment op Ebeoe — Supbeme Oodbt Peaptice.— In an action of law, where the plaintiff in error failed to file or serve an assignment of error, and where there is nothing in the complaint or answer to make the case one of equitable cognizance, an appeal will be dismissed.
    Error to the District Court holding terms at Olympia» Second District.
    Action by Catherine A. Frazier against L. P. Venen, guardian, etc., and also action by the same plaintiff against W. E. Anderson.
    Motion by defendant in error to dismiss appeal for want of an assignment of error and on other grounds..
    
      Messrs. Judson & Sliarpstein, and Mr. F. Henry, for the Defendant in Error, favoring the motion.
    This is an action at law to recover real property, and. plaintiff in error having failed to assign error,' as required by rule 5 of the Supreme Court, the appeal should be dismissed. (Parker v. Dacres, 2 Wash. 362; Collins v. Seattle, id. p. 534; Brown v. Hazard, id. p. 464.
    
      Mr. P. P. Oarroll, for the Plaintiff in Error, against the motion.
   Mr. Justice Turner

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellees move to dismiss the appeal in the above cases, because appellant has failed to file or serve an assignment of errors.

We are of opinion that the motion must prevail. There is nothing in the complaint or answer to make the case one of equitable cognizance. The orders and judgments of the District Court, in actions at law, cannot be reviewed in this court without an assignment of errors. (Brown et al. v. Hazard, 2 Wash. 464.)

Let the appeal be dismissed.

Jones, C. J., Allyn J., and Langford, J,, concurred.  