
    TRIPP, County Treasurer, Respondent, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF YANKTON, Appellant.
    (205 N. W. 666.)
    (File No. 5431.
    Opinion filed November 9, 1925.)
    1. Appeal and. Error — New Trial — Findings—Order o£ Trial Court Granting New Trial on Ground That Findings Were Not Supported by Evidence Held Proper.
    Order of trial court granting new trial on grounds that findings of fact were against weight of evidence, and that judgment was not supported by proper and complete findings of fact and conclusions- of law, will not be disturbed in Supreme Court.
    
      Clark & Henderson, of Yankton, for Appellant.
    •2. Appeal and Error — Supreme Court Will Not Decide Question of Law Until Facts Have Been Finally determined in Trial Court.
    Question of law in case should not be considered by Supreme Court until facts have been finally determined in trial court.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Yankton County; Hon. L. L. FunkGUR, Judge.
    Action by Gertrude L-. Tripp against the First National Bank •of Yankton. From an order granting a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Bogue & Bogue, of P’arker, for Respondent.
    (1) To point one of the opinion, Appellant cited: McLeod ~v. Shelly Manufacturing Company (Ala.), 9 So. 326; Dugane v. Hvezda Pokroku (la.), 119 N. W. 141; Bulks v. Cheadle (Minn.), 30 N. W. 549; Richardson v. Woodring (la..), 37 N. W. 122; Buchanan v. Randall, 21 S. D. 44, 109 N. W. 513; Mauzy v. Hinrichs (N’eb.), 131 N. W. 218.
    Respondent cited: Security State Bank of Beresford v. Bank of Centerville (S. D.), 19,3 N. W. 670; Farmers & Merchants National Bank v. H. E. Míonk et al (S. D.), 189 N. W. 513; Larson v. Johnson (S. D1.), 178 N. W. 876.
    
      Note.- — -Reported in 205 N. W. 66-6. See, Headnote (1), American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and Error, Key-No. 979(2), 4 C. J. Sec. 2816; (2) Appeal and Error, Key-No. 843(1), 4 C. J. Sec. 2541.
   POLLEY, P. J.

In this case the trial court made findings of fact and1 conclusions of law favorable to the defendant, and entered judgment accordingly. Thereafter, upon plaintiff’s motion, a new trial was granted, and the case is here on appeal by the defendant from the order granting a new trial.

In the order appealed from the trial judge stated as a reason for setting aside the judgment and granting a new trial that in his opinion the findings of fact are not only unsupported by the evidence, but are against the clear preponderance of the evidence, and also the further reason that the judgment is not supported by “proper and competent findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

We do not believe this court should disturb an order of the trial court based upon the above grounds. We have not overlooked the very serious question of law involved in the case, but believe that this should not be considered until the facts have been finally determined by the trial court.

The order appealed from is affirmed.  