
    AMBROSE GUITERMAN and Others v. OLE S. SATERLIE and Another.
    
    April 19, 1899.
    Nos. 11,514—(45).
    Appeal — Court Rule 9 Disregarded.
    The appellant made no assignment of errors, omitted from the paper book and return the judgment appealed from, and neither the paper book nor return contained any settled case or bill'of exceptions; hence the judgment is affirmed.
    Appeal by F. M. Barrett, garnishee in the'above entitled action, from a judgment and from.an order of the district court for Traverse county.
    Affirmed.
    
      G. H. Golyer, for appellant.
    
      .McLaughlin <£- Boyesen and F. J. Sleidl, for respondents.
    
      
       LA CROSSE KNITTING WORKS v. OLE S. SATERLIE and Another.
      PHELPS, DODGE & PALMER COMPANY v. OLE S. SATERLIE and Another. H. C. BURBANK and Others v. OLE S. SATERLIE and Another.
      April 19, 1899.
      Nos. 11,512, 11,513, 11,519—(43, 44, 46).
      
        O. H. Oolyer, for appellants.
      
        O'Hair & Murphy, McLaughlin c6 Boyesen and F. J. Steidl, for respondents.
      BUCK, J.
      For the reasons stated in the Guiterman case the judgments herein are affirmed.
    
   BUCK, J.

The appellant’s brief contains no assignment of errors, as required by rule 9 of this court (60 Minn. v). Nor does the paper book contain the judgment appealed from, as required by said rule.

Neither does the paper book nor return contain a settled case or bill of exceptions, and the oral evidence printed in the paper book is not contained in the return.

For these reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.  