152 U.S. 87
14 S.Ct. 632
38 L.Ed. 365
ROWE et al.
v.
PHELPS.
No. 237.
March 5, 1894.
This was, as in the preceding case, [Lazarus v. Phelps, 14 Sup. Ct. 477,] an action by the defendant in error to recover the rental value of certain sections of land alleged to have been depastured by the plaintiffs in error, constituting the firm of Rowe Bros.
Upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $7,739, for which judgment was entered, and defendant sued out this writ of error.
M. L. Crawford, for plaintiffs in error.
Leigh Robinson, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no assignment of errors sent up with the record in this case, as required by Rev. St. § 997, and no 'specification of the errors relied upon,' as required by rule 21 of this court. 3 Sup. Ct. xii. This rule requires that the specification 'shall set out separately and particularly each error assigned and intended to be urged,' and there is no such 'plain error not assigned or specified.' as calls upon the court to exercise its option to review the questions involved. It would seem that, unless the statute and rule are to be entirely disregarded, this writ of error must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.