
    Jemima M. Dungan, Administratrix of the Estate of Abel E. Dungan, Deceased, Appellant, v. Iowa Central Railway Company.
    3 4 Practice in Supreme Court: assignment oe error. Where an undenied amended abstract asserts that both abstracts do not eon* tain all the evidence, the court will not consider an assignment that no verdict should have been directed under the evidence.
    1 5 Directed verdict. Where motion for verdict which contains several grounds is sustained generally, the direction will be sustained if either ground of the motion is well taken.
    2 Indeeiniteness. An assignment that the “court erred in his ruling on the objections to the questions where the question and objection are set out in the foregoing abstract” is too indefinite.
    
      Appeal from Mahaska District Court. — Hon. D. Ryan, Judge.
    Tuesday, October 22, 1895.
    This action was commenced by Abel E. Dungan to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained while a passenger on one of defendant’s trains, because of the negligent of defendant’s employes in not permitting the train to remain stopped long enough for him to alight therefrom at the place of his destination, and because of starting said train with a sudden jerk, and because there was no chain or rope between the guard rails on the rear platform of the car on which he was riding. The defendant answered, denying generally, and alleging that for value received Abel E. Dungan settled with the defendant in full of all damages growing out of said accident, and! released and discharged the defendant from all liability therefor. The plaintiff replied, admitting said settlement and release, and alleging that the same was obtained by fraud, when he was in an insensible and unconscious condition, and incompetent to transact business. Abel E. Dungan having died pending the action, his administratrix was substituted as plaintiff. She amended, alleging the death of Mr. Dungan, and that he died from the injuries thus received', which were received without fault or negligence on his part. At the conclusion of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a verdict upon the following grounds: That the evidence fails to show that defendant was guilty of negligence; that it does show that plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence; that it fails to show that there was any fraud in making said settlement, or that plaintiff’s intestate was not capable of entering into said contract of settlement; that it “shows that both plaintiff’s intestate and plaintiff have fully ratified said settlement, since the making thereof, by keeping the money, and failing to either pay or tender the same back within a reasonable time, or before the commencement of this action,” and that upon the whole evidence the plaintiff cannot recover. Pending the hearing of said motion, defendant filed an amendment to its answer, averring that said contract of settlement was fully ratified by Abel E. Dungan and by the plaintiff, with full knowledge of all the facts, by keeping and retaining said money, and not paying or tendering the same to defendant. Plaintiff amended her reply by denying every allegation contained in defendant’s answer, adopting the allegations of the reply theretofore filed, and offering to pay to defendant the money received on-said settlement. The record further shows that, after the court had announced its ruling sustaining defendant’s motion for verdict, the plaintiff asked and was given leave to amend her reply, as already stated, and that thereupon, and as one of ,the jurors was about to sign the verdict for defendant, plaintiff, by one of her attorneys, offered to the attorney for the defendant twenity-five dollars, as a rescission., of the contract of settlement, and that at the same time, plaintiff’s) amendment to her reply wias presented. The tender was declined, and plaintiff asked leave to introduce evidence of said tender. The court declined to recognize such tender, and directed the jurors to sign the verdict, which was done. Judgment was rendered on the verdict against the plaintiff, and plaintiff appeals.
    
    Affirmed.
    
      Bolton & McCoy and Lacey & Lacey for appellant.
    
      A. C. Daly and L. C. Blanchard for appellee.
   Given, O. J.

2 3 4 I. Appellee’s motion for a verdict was upon the following grounds: “(1) The evidence fails to show that defendant was guilty of negligence. (2) The evidence affirmatively shows that plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligénce. (3) The evidence and pleadings show that plaintiff’s intestate, Abel E. Dungan, for a valuable consideration, settled and compromised this cause of action on the twenty-sixth day of August, 1891, and such settlement and release is a bar to this action. (4) The evidence fails to show that there was any fraud in making said settlement. (5) The evidence fails to show that plaintiff’s intestate was not capable of entering into said contract of settlement. (6) The evidence shows that both plaintiff’s intestate and' plaintiff have fully ratified the settlement, since the making thereof, by keeping the money, and failing to either pay or tender the same back within a reasonable time, or before the commencement of this action. (7) Upon the whole evidence in the case the plaintiff cannot recover.” This motion was sustained generally. Therefore, if any ground1 of the motion was well taken, there was no error in sustaining it. Appellant’s assignments of errorsi are as follows: “(1) The court erred in his rulings upon the objections to the questions, where the questions and objections are set out in the foregoing abstract. The evidence sought tv he elicited, and eScited, is relevant, competent, and material. (2) The court erred in his ruling upon the motion to direct a verdict, for the reason that, upon the whole record, plaintiff was entitled to recover, and plaintiff’s cause of action should have been submitted to the jury for their determination, under proper instructions from the court. (3) The court erred in not overruling said motion to direct a verdict. (4) The court erred in holding that the plaintiff could not recover on account of the alleged settlement, the record1 disclosing that said settlement was obtained by fraud and duress, and at a time when the plaintiff was not able to contract on account of his mental condition. (5) The court erred in not submitting to the jury, under proper instructions, plaintiff’s whole case, and further question as to-whether- or not the said contract was not obtained by fraud or undue influence, and at a time when the plaintiff was. not capable of contracting. As upon the whole record plaintiff was entitled to recover.” Appell-ee filed an amended abstract, denying that appellant’s abstract is a full, true, correct, and complete abstract of the whole record in the case, and alleging that “the two abstracts together do not contain all the evidence.” This is not denied, and, therefore, it does not appear that we have all the evidence before us. The first assignment is too general. It does not point out the rulings complained of, and the argument on that subject is even more indefinite. We are left to search the entire record to see if, in any of the rulings made in taking the evidence, error is found. This we must decline to do, for, as has been uniformly held, the errors complained of must be specifically pointed out.

II. The second1 and third assignments of error involve an examination of the evidence, and as the evidence is -not all before us, we cannot say whether the court did -or did not err in sustaining appellee’s motion for a verdict on either the first or second ground! thereof, 'even if it appeared1 that the ruling was upon one or the other of said grounds. The other ground's of appellee’s motion for a verdict are based upon the -alleged settlement and ratification thereof, and the remaining assignment of errors rests upon the assumption that it was upon these grounds of appellee’s motion that the court directed the verdict. The motion for verdict was sustained generally, and we may not assume that it was upon any particular ground, but must hold that there was no error if any of the grounds are well taken. The presumption is in favor of the action of the court. In the absence of all the evidence, we cannot say that the court erred in sustaining appellee’s motion upon either the first or second ground thereof, or upon both. Upon the record before us, the judgment of the district court must be affirmed. We are better content with this conclusion, inasmuch as, upon the evidence before us, we are inclined to think the court was justified in sustaining appellee’s motion on the first and second groundis thereof. — Affirmed.  