Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-06-22
OPINION
By Massey, c. J.

OPINION
BY Massey, CT.
This action was instituted by the APP
pellant on the 18th day of May, 1899, to
recover the possession of 5000 head of
sheep of the value of $4,000 He bases
his right to recover as the surviving
partner of the firm of Stock 4 Schwartz,
of which firm the testator, William
Stock, died on the 25th day of November,
1885, The appellant alleges in his COM
plaint among other matters, that he and
the said decedent on the day of June,
1890, entered into an agreement Of co-par-
tnership to engage in, and under said
agreement did engage in the business of
buying, selling and raising sheep under
the firm name of Stock 4 Schwartz, aud
were SO engaged at the time of the death
of said Stock; that at the time of the
death of said Stock, he and appellant
were the owners in co-partnership of the
sheep in controversy; that the respon-
dent in 1899 wrongfully took and ever
since unlawfully withholds and detains
the said property from the appellant.
The answer denies the partnership and
all other material averments of the COM
plant 1t affirmatively shows that Will
helmina Stock was at the time of his
death the sole and exclusive owner of the
property in controversy, and that she, as
executrix, was from the time of her APP
pointment, the owner and entitled to the
exclusive possession of the property.
She further denied, by plea, that the APP
pellant, had any right, title, or interest, in
or to the property in controversy as an
individual, surviving partner, or in any
capacity whatever. Upon the trial, judg-
ment was for the respondent. The ap-
order denying the motion for new trial.
1t is claimed by the appellant that the
court erred in refusing to make findings
of fact, and in refusing to make findings
of fact as requested by him. 1t appears
from the record that after judgment the
appellant requested certain specific find
ings upon the issue made by the plead
ings, which request was refused, and an
exception taken to the action of the court
in so ruling. 1t does not appear from the
record why this request was refused
neither does it appear from the exception
taken, or otherwise, how or in what man
ner the appellant was injured by this &C.
ton of the court By Section lS2 of the
Civil Practice Act, Com. Laws, Section
3277, 1t is provided that upon the trial o.
every issue of fact by the court when sit
ting without jury, its decision shall bt
rendered in writing by the court or jud q
who tried the cause, and filed with tn
clerk within ten days after the trial; il
rendering such decision the court o
Judge shall briefly state the facts fount
and the conclusions of law reached, ant
within specified time the attorney 70
the prevailing party shall draw complet
findings Of fact and conclusions of la,
and present them to the judge for his sig
nature, and judgment shall be entered i
accordance Herewith.
Whether or not failure to comply wit
the requirements of this section woul
invalidate the judgment is not before U
in this case. The record does not affirm
atively show that the court either faile
or refused to make the findings of ia
required by the section. This court wi
not indulge in Prescriptions against Il
regularity of the proceedings of the tri
court. 1t has repeatedly held that a
Prescriptions favor the regularity of tt
proceedings of that court, and that whe
error is alleged it must be Affirmative
shown by the record before this cou
will reverse an order or judgment Of Il
lower court
Champion v. Sessions, 2 New, I'll;
Nosler v. Haynes, 2 New So;
Lady Bryan G. s. Il M. Co., v. La,
Bryan M. Co., New. 4l4;
Mitchell v. Bromberger, New. 345;
Allison v. Hagan, IL New. 80;
Nesbitt v. Chisholm. Is New. 80;
Leete v. Sutherland, 20 New. II.
The fact that the court refused to fl
rs requested does not show that the co,
did not find at all. The findings of I
court are no part of the judgment r,
Com. Laws, Sec 1900, and can only be p
scented, as repeatedly held, on appeal
the statement. The fact that there are
findings in the record does not raise
presumption that no findings we're ma
hoinn oho, irnr oth h~,1