ed the profits, the husband's possession_was not adverse to the wife's. - Bader v. Dyer (Iowa) 469. Possession of a co-tenant is not adverse where he does not make public claim of entire ownership.-Bader v. Dyer (Iowa) 469. To set statute of limitations in motion, disseisor must enter and take possession with intent to hold for himself to the exclusion of all others. Carpenter v. Coles (Minn.) 424. It is not necessary that entry should be made under color of title or a claim of legal right.— Carpenter v. Coles (Minn.) 424. ALTERATION. Of geographical or political divisions, see "Municipal Corporations," § 1. ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENTS. Where written instrument signed by one party is changed and signed by the other in its altered condition, it does not bind the former, unless he ratifies the change.-McGavock v. Morton (Neb.) 785. AMENDMENT. Purchase of outstanding title by one in adverse possession held insufficient to devest pos- Of pleading, see "Equity," § 2. session of adverse character when purchase was not made until after statutory period.Webb v. Thiele (Neb.) 56. Laws 1868-69, c. 15, § 6, mentions a tax deed as giving color of title to a person holding land adversely in good faith; and Rev. Codes 1877, p. 584, § 641, omits such provision. Held, that a tax deed still constitutes color of title.-Parker v. Vinson (S. D.) 1023. Open, notorious, and continuous use of premises, without objection, for more than 20 years, unexplained, held to establish an adverse possession from the beginning.-Meyer v. Hope (Wis.) 720. An adverse possessor's taking a deed from the heirs of claimant's intestate held not to interrupt the statute of limitations.-Meyer v. Hope (Wis.) 720. Of particular legal proceedings. Of record on appeal or writ of error, see "Ap- AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. Jurisdictional amount, see "Appeal and Error," § 1. ANIMALS. Fence laws, see "Fences." Agister undertaking to deliver at close of season cattle received for pasturage held to have burden of accounting for those not so delivered. Evidence held sufficient to warrant the conclu--Ware Cattle Co. v. Anderson (Iowa) 1026. sion of the existence of hostile possession by defendant.-Meyer v. Hope (Wis.) 720. It may be presumed that there was a hostile entry where the possession is shown to be continuous, exclusive, and notorious. Meyer v. Hope (Wis.) 720. § 2. Operation and effect. A grantee of land by metes and bounds, maintaining a fence by agreement for 23 years, held to own to the fence, though it was not on the true line.-Boyd v. Shoop (Iowa) 482. § 3. Pleading, evidence, trial, and review. On an issue of adverse possession, held, the evidence was for the jury.-Webb v. Thiele (Neb.) 56. AFFIDAVITS. In particular proceedings. See, also, "Attachment," § 3. An affidavit held not sufficient to authorize the issuance of a subpoena, where no action was pending, under Code 1873, § 3692.-Chambers v. Oehler (Iowa) 853. AGENCY. See "Principal and Agent." AGREEMENT. See "Contracts." AGRICULTURE. Description in application for seed-grain loan held sufficiently certain.-William Deering & Co. v. Peterson (Minn.) 568. AIDERS AND ABETTORS. In action on contract to keep animals constantly in good pasturage, an instruction that such pasturage need not be the best pasturage held not prejudicial.-Ware Cattle Co. v. Anderson (Iowa) 1026. Instruction in actions for breach of contract of agistment held properly refused.-Ware Cattle Co. v. Anderson (Iowa) 1026. The herd law does not do away with the common-law liability of the owners of stock for trespasses committed by them.-Lorance v. Hillyer (Neb.) 755. A city lot on which fruit trees are planted is cultivated land, within Herd Law, § 6 (Comp. St. 1897, c. 2, art. 3), awarding damages for trespasses done by animals.-Lorance v. Hillyer (Neb.) 755. The remedy afforded by the herd law by one injured by trespassing animals is not exclusive of the common-law remedy.-Lorance v. Hillyer (Neb.) 755. juries committed by his cattle while trespassing At common law, every one was liable for inon the lands of others, whether such lands were cultivated or not.-Lorance v. Hillyer (Neb.) 755. APPEAL AND ERROR. See, also, "Certiorari"; "Exceptions, Bill of"; "New Trial." Costs, see "Costs," § 4. Review in special proceedings. Assessment of taxes, see "Taxation," § 2. Review of proceedings of justices of the peace. § 1. Decisions reviewable. An order for the production of books and papers is not appealable under Code 1873, § 3164, Criminal responsibility, see "Criminal Law," § 1. subds. 1, 4.-Devier v. Economic Life Ass'n ALIMONY. See "Divorce," § 4. (Iowa) 454. An order on a clerk of the court to turn over to plaintiff notes and the proceeds thereof held appealable.-Oyster v. Bank (Iowa) 523. Where demurrer to petition is sustained, and amendments are stricken out, and second demurrer sustained, an appeal lies from the order sustaining such demurrer.-Koboliska v. Swehla (Iowa) 576. The claim that a payment was under duress cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.— Lamb v. Rathburn (Mich.) 268. Error in assessment of amount due cannot be considered under assignment in motion that mond v. Edwards (Neb.) 75. An order of allowance to a widow held not ap- verdict is not sustained by evidence.-Hampealable.-Bordwell v. Snow (Mich.) 936. Judgment in replevin dismissing the plaintiff. with order to impanel jury to inquire into right of property and damages of defendants, held a final judgment as to plaintiff.-Swain v. Savage (Neb.) 362. Order that, after exhausting remedy against principal debtor, creditor may apply for a judgment against guarantor of collection, is not appealable.-Millard v. Parsell (Neb.) 390. An order appointing a receiver is appealable in advance of the final disposition of the case. -M. A. Seeds Dry-Plate Co. v. Heyn PhotoSupply Co. (Neb.) 660. An appeal will not lie to the supreme court from a judgment of a district court in a legal action.-Lowe v. Riley (Neb.) 758. Appeal from order of district court in a law action does not give supreme court jurisdiction. -Hayden v. Hale (Neb.) 773. One cannot appeal from order discharging executor, when not prejudiced by decision.-Cowherd v. Kitchen (Neb.) 1107. Final order in habeas corpus is not appealable as a final order affecting a substantial right in a special proceeding.-Carruth v. Taylor (N. D.) 617. An order dismissing an action for failure of proof is neither a judgment nor an appealable order. Cameron v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (N. D.) 1016. An order denying a motion to set aside a service of summons held not final, under Rev. St. 1898, § 3069, subd. 1, so as to be appealable.Latimer v. Central Electric Co. (Wis.) 155. Order opening default, and refusing to order reference of questions of fact arising on the motion, is not appealable.-Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. v. Rude (Wis.) 177. An order appointing commissioners in condemnation proceedings in the circuit court held appealable.-State v. Oshkosh, A. & B. W. R. Co. (Wis.) 193. Amount claimed in one count of an action which was abandoned held no part of the "amount involved" in determining the appealability of the cause.-Widman v. Gay (Wis.) 918. A cause held not appealable, under Rev. St. 1898, § 3047, because it involved less than $100, and no certificate of the trial judge was attached.-Widman v. Gay (Wis.) 918. 2. Right of review. Where, in partition, issue of conflicting titles is tried without objection, a party will not be heard to question the force of the judgment.-Carson v. Broady (Neb.) 80, Where a judgment was adverse to a surety in an action to foreclose an indemnity mortgage, held, that the creditor had sufficient interest to appeal.-Blair State Bank v. Stewart (Neb.) 370. The city of La Crosse and its officers as such may appeal from a judgment setting aside proceedings for constructing a sewer.-State v. City of La Crosse (Wis.) 167. § 3. Presentation and reservation in lower court of grounds of review. Grounds of relief urged for first time in supreme court will not be considered.-King v. Wells (Iowa) 338. Authority of a party to take an assignment cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal.-Preston v. Peterson (Iowa) 864. Exception to a portion of the instructions as a "paragraph" held proper, and the portion to which reference was made held to be within the meaning of the word used.-McClellan v. Hein (Neb.) 120. Journal entry held sufficient evidence of an exception to a decision on motion for new trial.— State v. Bartley (Neb.) 438. To obtain a review of questions raised in a motion for new trial, an exception must be taken to the overruling of the motion at the time thereof.-State v. Bartley (Neb.) 438. To obtain a review of the proceedings of the trial court, an exception to the final judgment is unnecessary.-State v. Bartley (Neb.) 438. A statement held to furnish evidence of an exception having been made, and to be a proper manner of notation.-State v. Bartley (Neb.) 438. Taking an exception is an act of counsel in court; the evidence of the act is its notation of record.-State v. Bartley (Neb.) 438. Ruling on motion, to which no exception was taken, cannot be reviewed.-Frenzer v. Phillips (Neb.) 668. Where a special objection to court's jurisdiction is overruled, and defendant pleads generally the facts showing want of jurisdiction, the objection is not waived.-Barry v. Wachosky (Neb.) 1080. Petition in error does not present for review proceedings during the trial, where there was no motion below for a new trial.-Broadwater v. Foxworthy (Neb.) 1103. Objections not made in the trial court will not be considered.-Broadwater v. Foxworthy (Neb.) 1103. An assignment that court erred in directing verdict may be considered, although there was no motion to set aside verdict and grant new trial.-Richter v. Leiby's Estate (Wis.) 745. A finding as to which there is no exception will not be reviewed.-Merriman v. McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. (Wis.) 880. because it relates to a transaction with a deceThe objection that testimony is incompetent dent cannot be first urged on appeal.-Brown v. Johnson (Wis.) 900. § 4. Parties. In appeals in equity, after a transcript has been lodged in the supreme court by one party, the other may assume the attitude of an appellant by filing a brief assailing the decree.Goos v. Goos (Neb.) 687. § 5. Requisites and proceedings for transfer of cause. Abstract of or record held filed in time, under Code, §§ 4114, 4116, 4120.-Hanson v. Hammell (Iowa) 839. Appeal from allowance of claim against decedent in county court not within the statutory time confers no jurisdiction on district court.Baacke v. Dredla (Neb.) 341. In absence of petition in error, district court has no jurisdiction to inquire whether there was error in the county court.-Baacke v. Dredla (Neb.) 341. Justification of sureties on bond held sufficient where they appeared before a justice in pursuance of notice, and filed new undertaking, which was approved.-Dunn v. National Bank of Canton (S. D.) 111. 6. Effect of transfer of cause or pro-and he proposes no amendments, it will be preceedings therefor. sumed to contain all the evidence.-Columbia Where a decree provides that "defendants Nat. Bank v. German Nat. Bank (Neb.) 346. have 30 days to file a supersedeas bond, and Instructions to a jury are proper matters of in the meantime no execution to issue," filing a bond within that time does not prevent the de-record, and need not be preserved by bill of exceptions.-State v. Bartley (Neb.) 438. cree's enforcement when the time expires, unless an appeal be taken.-Oyster v. Bank (Iowa) 523. The amendment of a judgment after appeal, not materially changing the original judgment, held not reversible error.-Parker v. Vinson (S. D.) 1023. Where there is no bill of exceptions, the sufficiency of the evidence will not be reviewed.-Gay v. Reynolds (Neb.) 661. Where, from inspection of the bill of exceptions, it is obvious that the word "testimony" was used with reference to the evidence, and as § 7. Supersedeas or stay of proceedings. Synonymous with it, it will be accorded such A supersedeas bond held not invalid for want signification.-Woolworth v. Parker (Neb.) 1090. of consideration.-Lowe v. Riley (Neb.) 758. A mere rescript of the evidence and proceedOn an order to show cause issued in a fore-ings, as preserved by reporter, held not a stateclosure suit, and served on the parties to a su- Thingvalla Tp. (N. D.) 284. ment of the case on appeal.-Brynjolfson v. persedeas bond, held, that the court might enter a judgment against them for the rents and profits.-Lowe v. Riley (Neb.) 758. A supersedeas bond conditioned to account for the rents and profits in a foreclosure suit held conditioned to account for the full rental value.-Lowe v. Riley (Neb.) 758. An order appointing a receiver cannot be superseded as a matter of right; hence the lower court may impose conditions.-Lowe v. Riley (Neb.) 758. A surety on a bond superseding an order appointing a receiver becomes a party to the suit. -Lowe v. Riley (Neb.) 758. A bond held insufficient to supersede an order appointing a receiver in foreclosure proceedings.-Lowe v. Riley (Neb.) 758. § 8. Record and proceedings not in record-Matters to be shown by rec ord. Where the pleadings are not all before the appellate court, it cannot determine that the issues did not warrant the decree.-Citizens' Bank v. Johnson (Iowa) 1046. Jurisdiction of district court to review final order of inferior court does not attach until duly-authorized transcript of the record is filed. -New Home Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Thornburg (Neb.) 86. § 9. Scope and contents of record. Where the evidence is not brought up, an instruction will not be held erroneous as telling the jury what certain evidence tends to show, where the question whether such evidence is true is left for the jury.-Martin v. Curtis (Mich.) 690. Failure of the trial court to write the word "Given" on the margin of a numbered portion of its charge held no reason for nonconsideration of the instruction by the appellate court. -McClellan v. Hein (Neb.) 120. A statement of the exceptions held properly a part of the record.-State v. Bartley (Neb.) 438. § 10. Necessity of bill of exceptions, case or statement of facts. Where the record does not contain all of the evidence, a verdict will not be reversed on the ground that the evidence shows it to be a compromise verdict.-Stevenson v. Detroit & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 247. Error in refusing a new trial will not be reviewed if the order of refusal, the reasons therefor, and exceptions to the decision are not contained in the bill of exceptions. Stevenson v. Detroit & M. Ry. Co. (Mich.) 247. An objection not preserved in bill of review, and not shown to have been presented in trial court, cannot be raised on appeal.-Berkey v. Burchard (Mich.) 635; Burchard v. Berkey, Id.: Lord v. Dix, Id. Where bill of exceptions purporting to contain all the evidence is submitted to adverse party, § 11. - Abstracts of record. Under Code, § 4118, and Sup. Ct. Rules, § 22. an abstract of record is deemed complete unless defects be specified by denial or additional abstract.-McGillivray v. Case (Iowa) 483. Under Code, § 4118. and Sup. Ct. Rules, § 22, an abstract of record is deemed complete unless defects be specified by denial or additional abstract.-State v. Whitcomb (Iowa) 485. An abstract will not be stricken because it does not contain all the evidence, where it contains everything essential to enable the court to pass on the errors urged.-McDermott v. Abney (Iowa) 505. § 12. Authentication and certifica tion. Document attached to transcript as bill of exceptions cannot be considered where not properly authenticated.--Coad v. Barry (Neb.) 341. A bill of exceptions not authenticated by clerk of trial court will not be considered.-Gay v. Reynolds (Neb.) 661. Judgment will be affirmed where supported by the pleadings, unless the bill of exceptions is certified by the clerk as either the original or the transcript ordered made a part of the record.-Crawford v. Smith (Neb.) 1078. In an equitable action the filing of the reporter's transcript after a lapse of six months after entry of the decree is too late to authorize a new trial in the appellate court.-Ring v. Froelich (Iowa) 506. § 14. Defects, objections, amend ments, and correction. Where an amendment curing a defect in abstract is filed seasonably after defect discovered, it will not be stricken as too late, or as a surprise, appellee having argued the case on the merits.-Steckel v. Standley (Iowa) 489. Appellant's motion submitted with the case to consider evidence stricken from the record will not be sustained, appellee having no opportunity for argument on the evidence.-Citizens' Bank v. Johnson (Iowa) 1046. Jurisdiction of the appellate court attaches where the petition in error and transcript are filed within the prescribed year, and after the expiration of that time the transcript may be amended.-Moss v. Robertson (Neb.) 403. In the absence of the evidence, the court will presume that the court below had legal evidence on which to base its findings.-Parker v. Vinson (S. D.) 1023. § 17. Assignment of errors. An assignment that "the court erred in sustaining plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict" is not sufficiently specific.-Battin v. City of Marshalltown (Iowa) 493. Appellant cannot object to the court's failure to limit evidence to the particular purpose for which it was admissible, where no request was made to so limit it. and no error was assigned for such failure.-Hasbrouck v. Western Union Tel. Co. (Iowa) 1034. Excess in amount of recovery cannot be considered when not assigned as error.-Hammond v. Edwards (Neb.) 75. Error in the assessment of the amount of recovery is not presented in an action based on contract by an assignment that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence.-Nye & Schneider Co. v. Snyder (Neb.) 118. An assignment of error directed to a group of rulings on a certain class of evidence raises only the question of the admissibility of the evidence as a whole.-Nye & Schneider Co. v. Snyder (Neb.) 118. Where joint assignments of error are not good as to all persons joining therein, they must be overruled.-Levy v. South Omaha Sav. Bank (Neb.) 769. An assignment of "errors of law occurring at the trial" presents nothing for review.-Hart v. Weber (Neb.) 1085. Assignment of error that there was error in overruling motion for new trial held too indefinite, where motion was based on several grounds.-Hart v. Weber (Neb.) 1085. An assignment that there was error in overruling motion for new trial held insufficient, where such motion was based on several grounds. -National Masonic Acc. Ass'n v. Burr (Neb.) 1098. An assignment must be specific to obtain review of error in denial of cross-examination as to a single question.-Honaker v. Vesey (Neb.) 1100. Certain assignments of error considered, and held insufficient.-Brynjolfson v. Thingvalla Tp. (N. D.) 284. §18. Briefs. An erroneous record cannot be first assailed on appeal.-Bader v. Dyer (Iowa) 469. Where party moves for leave to file claim against receiver after time for filing had expired, alleging excusable neglect, he cannot, on appeal, claim that the time for filing had not expired.Hove v. Bankers' Exch. Bank (Minn.) 967. Where the record shows a case dismissed for want of jurisdiction, that question will be examined, though the record sustains finding for defendant on the merits.-Hesser v. Johnson (Neb.) 406. Alleged error in verdict will not be considered when not raised by motion for new trial or petition in error.-Hart v. Weber (Neb.) 1085. Evidence may be reviewed without motion for new trial to determine error in directing verdict.-Dunn v. National Bank of Canton (S. D.) 111. § 21. Interlocutory, collateral, and supplementary proceedings and questions. Code Civ. Proc. § 275, authorizing appeal from interlocutory order, does not preclude review of order on general appeal after final judgment.-M. A. Seeds Dry-Plate Co. v. Heyn Photo-Supply Co. (Neb.) 660. will consider only objections raised below.— On appeal from confirmation of sale the court Toscan v. Devries (Neb.) 669. Overruling of a motion of defendant to require plaintiff in an action to foreclose a mortgage securing a note to file a copy of the note with the petition held reversible error.-First Nat. Bank v. Engelbercht (Neb.) 685. Errors in procedure at or before the trial cannot be reviewed on appeal.-National Life Ins. Co. v. Martin (Neb.) 769. Where return from judgment of dismissal fails to show what became of motion made to strike out a reply as sham, it cannot be presumed that the motion was granted.-Floberg v. Joslin (Minn.) 557. Supreme court rule 9 (59 N. W. v.), prescribing the requirements of briefs under penalty There is no presumption that questions subof having costs for printing the same disallow-mitted at trial of facts have been established ed, applied. - Kuenster v. Woodhouse (Wis.) beyond special findings made.-Oliver v. Lansing 165. 19. Dismissal, withdrawal, or donment. (Neb.) 802. A finding that one party to an action has a aban-judgment against the other in a collateral suit held not to warrant inference that such judg ment is based on specific claim.-Oliver v. Lansing (Neb.) 802. Where, on appeal, nothing remains but a question of costs. the appeal will be dismissed.-Moller v. Gottsch (Iowa) 859. Sup. Ct. Rule No. 4, in regard to serving written notice where appellant fails to make the proper return within 60 days after the appeal is perfected, held not to affect the right of respondent to move for a dismissal of the appeal for noncompliance with Rule 11 (66 N. W. iv.). In re Bank of Minnesota (Minn.) 239; In re Plymouth Clothing Co., Id. § 20. Review-Scope and extent in general. Matter not urged in appellant's argument in chief will not be specially considered.-King v. Wells (Iowa) 338. Where a party is entitled to new trial under a proper exercise of judicial discretion, the grant will not be reviewed, though the court may have erred as to the law.-In re_Rivenburgh's Estate (Minn.) 422; Voge v. Penney, Id. On appeal from an order vacating a judgment by default the only question to be determined is whether the court abused its discretion.-Boutin v. Catlin (Wis.) 910. $ 24. Questions of fact, verdicts, and findings. Where evidence is such that finding by the court cannot be said to be unauthorized, it will not be disturbed.-Carson v. Caward (Iowa) 488. A finding of the trial court, sustained by the evidence, will not be reversed on appeal.-Orman v. Smith (Iowa) 526. Where the evidence is conflicting, the judgment will not be disturbed if there was evidence to sustain it.-Spafford v. Keenan (Iowa) 1050. A ruling on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.-First Nat. Bank v. Hahn (Neb.) 50. A verdict on conflicting evidence will not be set aside. Brong v. Spence (Neb.) 54; Hammond v. Edwards (Neb.) 75. On appeal on exceptions to findings of fact by the court, all fair doubts are to be resolved in favor of the decision below.-Menz v. Beebe (Wis.) 913. On appeal from judgment in action tried by the court on exceptions to findings, evidence will be examined to see whether it sustains the finding.-Menz v. Beebe (Wis.) 913. Harmless error. § 25. had conveyed his interest in land was not prejAn error in finding that a tenant in common udicial, it being found that the interest was reconveyed to him.-Bader v. Dyer (Iowa) 469. Error in sustaining a demurrer to an averment held cured by permitting an averment to stand which raised the issue as completely as did the averment held bad.-Johnson v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 476. The erroneous admission of evidence as to the loss of profits from the breach of a contract held not prejudicial to defendant, where the undisputed evidence showed the immediate damages to be in excess of the verdict.-Black v. Des Moines Manufacturing & Supply Co. (Iowa) 504. An instruction referring to an unsigned memorandum of a contract as a written contract is harmless.-McDermott v. Abney (Iowa) 505. Questions of fact on conflicting evidence will Defendant held not harmed by an erroneous not be reviewed.-Lydick v. Gill (Neb.) 340. admission of evidence, where the jury were inVerdict on conflicting evidence will not be dis-structed to disregard it.-Gwinn v. King (Iowa) turbed.-Parlin, Orendorff & Martin Co. v. Albrecht (Neb.) 355. Conflicting evidence will not be weighed on appeal.-Crosby v. Bastedo (Neb.) 364. Findings of fact on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.-Feil v. Kitchen Bros. Hotel Co. (Neb.) 344; Gates v. Johnson (Neb.) 407. Questions of fact determined on uncontroverted evidence will not be reviewed.-Frenzer v. Phillips (Neb.) 668. Verdict on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.-Foss v. Streator (Neb.) 764. Findings of fact on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.-Des Moines Ins. Co. v. Davis (Neb.) 778. A judgment on special findings will be reversed where they are not sufficient to sustain it.-Oliver v. Lansing (Neb.) 802. A verdict on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.-Fellers v. Penrod (Neb.) 1085. Where parties rested the priority of their liens on the determination of a definite stated question, the court will not settle them in accordance with other facts existing in the case. -Woolworth v. Parker (Neb.) 1090. Judgment on conflicting evidence will not be reversed unless manifestly wrong.-National Masonic Acc. Ass'n v. Burr (Neb.) 1098. Findings on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed. Honaker v. Vesey (Neb.) 1100. Where record shows that an equity case has been tried at law by a jury, order of trial court setting aside the verdict will not be disturbed, though no objection was made by either party as to such trial.-Prondzinski v. Garbutt (N. D.) 1012. A judgment in equity, supported by the evidence, will not be reversed for failure of the trial court to make a finding of fact necessary to support it.-Disch v. Timm (Wis.) 196. Where a controverted fact is determined by the trial court, it must stand unless contrary to the clear preponderance of the evidence.Meyer v. Hope (Wis.) 720. Findings of the lower court will not be disturbed unless clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence.—Cunningham v. Rodby (Wis.) 740. 834. Erroneous statements in instructions submitauthority on an agent to the jury, when they ting an issue as to whether telegrams conferred conferred such authority as matter of law, and the jury so found by their verdict, held not prejudicial error.-Hasbrouck v. Western Union Tel. Co. (Iowa) 1034. Submission of an issue, as to whether telegrams conferred authority on an agent to settle a claim, to the jury, when they conferred such authority as matter of law, held not prejudicial error, where the jury must have so found in rendering the verdict they did.-Hasbrouck v. Western Union Tel. Co. (Iowa) 1034. Where portions of letter offered were excluded, and there was nothing prejudicial in the part admitted, reading part of excluded portion without further objection held no ground for reversal. -Kimball Bros. v. Deere, Wells & Co. (Iowa) 1041. Improper remarks of counsel that were not prejudicial will not justify a reversal.--Avery v. Burrall (Mich.) 272. Error in excluding a question irrelevant except to show bias was harmless where the bias was otherwise shown.-Landry v. Landry (Mich.) 630. Disregard of defect in initial letter in name of one of the parties, where there was plea to the merits by the other party, held not reversible error.-Stever v. Brown (Mich.) 704. Where evidence is offered for particular purpose, its rejection is not reversible error, though it was admissible for another purpose, to which the attention of the court was not called.-Mareck v. Minneapolis Trust Co. (Minn.) 428. An instruction misstating the facts which may have prejudiced the jury held ground for reversal.-Ward v. Ward (Minn.) 965. Exclusion of evidence held harmless error, where matter that it tended to establish was conclusively shown by other evidence.-Thielen v. Randall (Minn.) 992. Where verdict is clearly right, judgment will be aflirmed, though there may have been errors at the trial.-United States School-Furniture Co. v. School Dist. No. 87, Lancaster County (Neb.) 62. |