
    McCaffrey v. Richey et al.
    Evidence considered.
    
      Appeal from Union District Court.
    
    Friday, September 19.
    The defendant Eagan obtained a judgment against John McCaffrey, the plaintiff’s husband, on which an execution was issued, and levied on certain real estate the legal title to which was in the plaintiff. The object of this action was to enjoin the sale thereof, and establish plaintiff’s title five and clear of the lien of said judgment. An injunction was issued. The answer denied that plaintiff was the owner of said real estate, and alleged the same was conveyed to plaintiff to defraud the creditors of her husband.
    There was a trial to the court, a finding that the equities were with the defendants, and a decree accordingly. The plaintiff appeals.
    
      Harsh é lligbee, for appellant.
    
      McDill it- Sullivan, for appellees.
   Seevers, J.

I. Counsel for the appellant concede that this cause is not triable de novo in this court, but only on errors assigned, which we proceed to consider. It is insisted the finding is against the evidence. The case turns upon the testimony of the plaintiff. She states, on her examination in chief, that the lands in controversy were purchased with her money. She, however, was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, and we are constrained to say the story told by her is, to say the least, of a somewhat unusua> character. If she could be implicitly believed, however, the finding of the court is against the evidence. ' But she was examined in open court. Her conduct and demeanor on the stand have much to do witli tiiis question. The court below evidently disbelieved her story, and, considering the strange and unusual character of the transactions testified to, we are unable to say the court was not justified in so doing. It will, of course, be understood the finding has the force and effect of a verdict of a juiy.

II. It is insisted that improper testimony was admitted. But no such testimony is specifically pointed out. The complaint is that an extraordinary latitude was given to the cross-examination and matters inquired about that have no bearing on the matters in issue. We, however, see nothing in the examination to condemn, and clearly there was no prejudicial error.

III. The court decreed that the defendants might proceed and sell the real estate, and thereby obtain a satisfaction of the judgment. This action of the court is objected to, and it is also said there was no affirmative evidence in support of’ the allegations of the answer. But in neither of those particulars was there any error committed.

We deem it unnecessary to-state our reasons for this conclusion.

Affirmed.  