Malone

(after stating the facts).

The defendant in error objects that the assignments of error do not comply with rule 11 of this court, requiring that assignments of error “shall set up separately and particularly each error asserted and intended to be urged.” The purpose of this rule and of rule 24 is to secure a clear, but brief, statement of the precise question to be reviewed, and enable the court to understand the subject of the controversy without laborious search. If this appears clearly and distinctly in the record as pointed out by the assignments of error, it is all that is required. In this case there is no difficulty in understanding the question as presented by the record, and further particularity in the assignments of error is therefore unnecessary.

Plaintiff’s action is in the nature of a suit in ejectment against the defendants to recover the possession of a mining claim. His right of action is based upon an alleged possession under claim of ownership, supported by a location made in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the laws of the United States.

The first defense set up by the defendants is a prior location made for and on behalf of one H. M. Baker on…