
    Joel Brewster v. J. C. Hall.
    July Term, 1873.
    Findings: In Supreme Court. Where the only error complained of is that the finding is against the evidence, and there is clear, positive, and unequivocal testimony supporting such finding the supreme court will not set it aside. [Bridge Co. v. Murphy, 13 Kan. 40.]
    Error from Bourbon district court.
    Action upon a due-bill (non-negotiable) given by Brewster to Dimon & Swasa, and by them indorsed to Hall. The defense was, that payment had been made to D. & S., by sale and conveyance of certain real property, pursuant to a contract made between defendant and D. & S., of which contract said due-bill was a part. The action was commenced before a justice in Cherokee county, and removed to the district court of that county by appeal. The venue was changed to Bourbon district court, where the case was tried at the December term, 1872, before C. W. B., judge pro tem. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff.
    
      Huleit é McCleverty, for plaintiff in error.
    
      McGomas é McKeighan, for defendant in error.
   Brewer, J.

The error complained of in this ease is that the judgment was “contrary to the facts and the evidence.” The case was tried by the court, without a jury, a general finding made in favor of the defendant in error, and no motion for a new trial. The evidence was conflicting; but there was clear, positive, and unequivocal testimony supporting the findings. Under such circumstances it is well settled that this court will not disturb the judgment entered by the district court. Carson v. Kerr, 7 Kan. *268; Major v. Major, 2 Kan. *337; Lacy v. Dunn, 5 Kan. *567; Ulrich v. Ulrich, 8 Kan. *402; Ruth & King v. Ford, 9 Kan. *17; Brumbaugh v. Schmidt, Id. *117; Hyde v. Bledsoe, Id. *399.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

(All the justices concurring.)  