Opinion
File No. 7893.
Opinion filed May 12, 1936.
1. Appeal and Error.
Assignments of error without any support in specifications of error must be ignored.
2. Appeal and Error.
Assignments of error which merely assert error, without pointing out error or setting forth any reasons as basis for alleged error, are insufficient.
3. Appeal and Error.
Sufficiency of evidence to support findings held not properly presented, where appellants' brief set forth no abstract of testimony in compliance with statute and court rule (Rev. Code 1919, § 3149; rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court).
Appeal from Circuit Court, Moody County; HON. L.L. FLEEGER, Judge.
Action by John Hirning, as receiver of the First National Bank of Flandreau, S.D., against R.H. Dunlap, as executor of the estate of James C. Dunlap, deceased, and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Danforth Davenport, of Sioux Falls, for Appellants.
Rice Rice, of Flandreau, for Respondent.
Plaintiff brought this action to foreclose a certain mortgage. Judgment was for plaintiff, and defendant R.H. Dunlap has attempted to appeal to this court from the judgment entered.
[1, 3] The specifications of error are set forth in appellants' brief, and there are also certain so-called assignments of error. Assignments of error Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are without any support in the specifications of error, and must therefore be ignored. Hepner v. Wheatley, 33 S.D. 34, 144 N.W. 923; Sweeney v. Hewett et al, 34 S.D. 302, 148 N.W. 503. The remaining assignments of error merely assert error, but do not point out the error or set forth any reasons as a basis for the alleged error. Such assignments are insufficient. Mahoney v. Smith, 41 S.D. 278, 170 N.W. 140; Reeves v. National Fire Insurance Co., 41 S.D. 341, 170 N.W. 575, 4 A.L.R. 1293; Privat v. Grand Bay Land Co., 41 S.D. 494, 171 N.W. 327; Brown v. Brown, 46 S.D. 469, 193 N.W. 596; Burd v. Meader et al, 50 S.D. 641, 211 N.W. 604; Sully v. Egan, 51 S.D. 46, 211 N.W. 803. In some of the assignments the attempt is made to question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings made by the trial court. Appellants' brief sets forth no abstract of the testimony, such as is required by section 3149, Rev. Code 1919, and rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. It is clear that the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not properly presented. Sanford v. Helgerson, 31 S.D. 472, 141 N.W. 390.
It should be stated that counsel for appellant now appearing of record in this court had nothing to do with the trial of the case nor with the preparation of the brief upon appeal.
The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
All the Judges concur.
WARREN, J., not sitting.