Case ID: sd_48/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GATES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FARMERS’ NATIONAL BANK OF HENDRICKS, MINNESOTA, Appellant, v. HAUGER et al, Respondents.
    (205 N. W. 384.)
    (File No. 5595.
    Opinion filed October 2, 1925.)
    1. Appeal and Error — Findings—Insufficiency of Evidence to Justify 1 Finding Noit Reviewed Where Particulars Are Not Specified.
    Insufficiency of evidence to justify finding cannot be reviewed where appellant fails to specify particulars wherein evidence is insufficient, as .required by Rev. Code 1919, Sec. 2546.
    2. Banks and Banicing- — Findings—Appeal and Error — Judgment for Bank in Action Against It and Former Cashier fox* Moxxey Received Held Supported by Fiixdings.
    In action against bank and former cashier for money had and received, court’s finding that money was loaned to cashier personally and not to bank held to support judgment for bank against plaintiff.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Deuel County; Hon. W. N. Skinner, Judge.
    Action by the Farmers’ National Bank of Hendricks, Minn., against O'. C. Hauger and the Astoria State Bank. From a judgment for defendant bank and an order denying new trial, plaintiff appeals.
    Judgment and order affirmed.
    
      Johnson & Schaefer, of Ivanhoe, Minn., for Appellant.
    /. N. Johnson, of Canby, Minn., for Respondent.
   GATES, J.

This action was brought against defendant bank and Hauger, its former cashier, for money had and received. Trial by the court. Findings and judgment for plaintiff as against Hauger. Findings and judgment for defendant bank as against plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying new trial. The detailed facts are unnecessary to an understanding of the case. They showi a series of sordid banking transactions on the part of Hauger while cashier of respondent bank resulting in the putting of appellant’s money, together with money of respondent bank, into some North Dakota' land, the title to which was afterwards transferred to respondent.

The trial court found that the money of plaintiff was loaned to Hauger as a personal transaction and not to respondent. Section 2546, Rev. Code 1919, says:

Note. — Reported in. 205 N. W. 384. See. Headnote (1), American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and Error, Key-No. 231(8), 3. C. J. Sec. 749; (2) Banks and Banking, Key-No. 229, 7 C. J. Sec. 569.

“If the party is relying upon the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict, finding or other decision, he shall specify the particulars wherein such evidence is claimed to be insufficient/''

This was not done; hence this court is powerless to review that question.

The sole question before us is whether the findings support the judgment. We think without doubt that they do.

The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.