Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/1370

 the grain to be harvested and threshed at defendant’s expense. It is held:

The evidence shows that the grain in controversy was converted by the plaintiffs and it fails to show a legal seizure thereof by the sheriff. State Bank v. Nelson, et. al., 702.

23. In the absence of a settled case containing the evidence, the facts found by the trial court must be accepted as true; the presumption obtains that the evidence supports the material facts alleged in the complaint and that the findings are supported by the evidence and, further, that additional matters covered by the findings and not embraced in the issues formed by the pleadings were properly determined by action of the parties at the trial. Ryan v. Bresmith, 710.

24. In the absence of a settled case, the Supreme Court may determine whether the conclusions of law are warranted by the findings of fact and may review error appearing affirmatively in the judgment roll. Ryan v. Bresmith, 710.

25. In the absence of a settled case, findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment providing for the strict foreclosure of a contract for a deed and determining that the vendor shall retain payments made upon the contract as liquidated damages in compensation for use and occupancy, or for rental value of the land, pursuant to an express stipulation in the contract, and that the vendor shall receive one-half of the grain crop, produced during the year of litigation, are not erroneous, Ryan v. Bresmith, 710.

26. Certain rulings relating to amendment of the complaint, the examination of witnesses, and the admission and rejection of evidence considered, and, for reasons stated in the opinion, held proper, or nonprejudicial. Asch v. Washburn Lignite Coal Co., 735.

28. In such action, the findings of the trial court are presumed to be correct unless clearly opposed to the preponderance of the evidence. McCormick v. Union Farmers’ State Bank, 834.

27. An action, instituted for purposes of declaring a deosit or payment of moneys to constitute a preference pursuant to the Federal Bankruptcy Act, and, as such, tried in the District Court without a jury, is not triable, upon appeal, de novo in the Supremg Court. McCormick v. Union Farmers’ State Bank, 834.

29. For reasons stated in the opinion, it is held, that the trial court did not commit error in its findings and conclusions. McCormick v. Union Farmers’ State Bank, 835.

30. That there is no basis for an assignment of error predicated upon alleged prejudicial remarks of plaintiff’s counsel in his argument to the jury. [[Howlett v. Stockyards Nat. Bank'', 933.