2 Or. 202 | Or. | 1867
Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal for want of proper service of notice in this, that the return does not show that there was no person in said office with whom the copy might have been ieft.' Upon cross motion of .appellants, leave was granted to amend the return in that nespect to conform to the facts. The notice of appeal and certificate contained the following statement of errors relied xupon to reverse the judgment:
“ 1st. Because it is contrary to law.
“ 2d. Because it is contrary to evidence.
“ 3d. Because it is based upon evidence improperly admitted and considered by the court; duly excepted to by appellants.”
Appellants asked leave to amend the statement as to first and second heads; which application was denied.