Case ID: sd_40/html/0528-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Me COY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ANDERSON, et al, Respondents, v. ROBINSON, Appellant.
    (168 N. W. 580).
    (File No. 4331.
    Opinion filed July 22, 1918.)
    Appeals — Error—Sufficiency of Evidence — No Specifications — Sufficient Findings, Effect re Error.
    There toeing no specifications of particulars of insufficiency of evidence to support findings, tout the findings being held sufficient to sustain judgment, judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
    Appeal from' 'Circuit Court, Hughes County. Hon. John E. Hughes, Ju-dge. . ,
    Action by Charles- H. Anderson! 'and- E. E. Swartz, trustees of the Estate of Andrew C. Brink, and others-, against Bessie E. RobinsOn, to determine adverse' claims to realty. From a judgment for plaintiffs, and from1 an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      John A. Holmes, for Appellant.
    
      Sutherland & Payne, for Respondents.
   Me COY, J.

Findings and- judgment were in favor of plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

This action ¡was brought to determine adverse claims1 to certain real estate. Respondents claimed title under patent from the United 'States- and various mesne conveyances. Appellant claims title under certain tax deeds. No specifications of particulars wherein the evidence was -claimed to- be insufficient to support the findings appear -to have been made. We are of the view that the findings are sufficient to sustain toe judgment, and that no prejudicial error otherwise appears from the appeal record. It will serve no useful purpose to further refer thereto.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment and -order appealed from are affirmed.