#### Ingersoll, Respondent, vs. Seatoft, imp., Appellant.

*September*24

*October 15, 1901.*

*Appeal: Exceptions to findings: Record: Mistake,*

1. A general exception to a finding containing several propositions of fact, some of which, are either undisputed or are clearly supported by the evidence, is insufficient.

2. Where the record shows two general exceptions to the ninth finding of fact and none to the tenth, all of the other findings being excepted to, the supreme court on appeal will not disregard the record and consider one of said exceptions as directed against the tenth finding.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Outaga-mie county: Jora GoodlaND, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

In December, 1897, there was pending in the circuit court for Winnebago county an action in which *G. D. Ingersoll*was plaintiff and the Ingersoll Land & Lumber Company was defendant. The defendant desired to appeal to this court, and gave ah undertaking signed by the defendants in this action to pay the costs on that appeal and any final judgment 'obtained therein, not exceeding $1,000. Judgment was finally entered in said action in favor of plaintiff, and this action is brought on that undertaking, claiming an indebtedness of $326.65. The defendant *Seatoft*answered, setting up certain matters in abatement and by way of defense. He also set up several matters by way of counterclaim, to which reply was made. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and findings were made for the plaintiff. The defendant filed exceptions to each finding of fact except to the tenth.. Such exceptions were to the whole of each finding, and were based on the ground that the same was “ contrary to the law, and not supported by the evidence.” The tenth finding was not excepted to, but the record shows two exceptions to the ninth finding. Judg*462ment was entered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant *Seatoft*has taken this appeal.

For the appellant there were briefs by *J. G. Kerwm,*and oral argument by *O. D. Cleveland, Jr.,*and *Mr. Kerwm.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Thompsons, Hol-lister*& *Pinkerton,*and oral argument by *J. O. Thompson.*

BardeeN, J.

The appellant seeks to attack the eighth and tenth findings of fact. Both of these findings contain several propositions of fact which are either undisputed or are clearly supported by the evidence. The exceptions, being general, are not sufficient to raise any question except whether the findings support the judgment. *Warner v. Cuckow,*90 Wis. 291; *Bailey v. Costello,*94 Wis. 87. What has been said is based upon the supposition that the tenth finding was in fact excepted to. The record shows two exceptions to the ninth finding and none to the tenth. It is argued that this was a clear mistake, and that we ought to' consider one of such exceptions directed against the tenth. This we cannot do, except by going contrary to the record made. But, were we to do so, it would avail nothing, for the reason before suggested. Neither are we able to bring the case within the rule laid down in *Reinke v. Wright,*93 Wis. 368. The findings support the judgment, and it must be affirmed.

*By the*Court.— Judgment affirmed.