
    Kuhnke, Appellant, vs. Borden, Respondent.
    
      September 18
    
    October 8, 1912.
    
    
      Accounting: Landowner and cropper: Findings of fact.
    
    In an action involving the accounts between the owner of a farm and a cropper, the findings of fact by the trial court are held to be sustained, by the evidence.
    Aureal from a judgment of the circuit court for Rock county: Geoege Gbimm, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The- defendant owned a farm in Rock county, and in October, 1907, made an agreement with the plaintiff and one Leopold by which Kuhnlce and Leopold were to take possession of the farm March 1, 1908, and work the same for a share of the crops and income. Leopold later assigned his interest to the plaintiff with defendant’s consent', and the plaintiff occupied the farm from some time in 1908 until January, 1912, when this action was commenced. The agreement contained numerous stipulations as to the furnishing of stock, seed, sale of milk, etc., which need not be particularly stated, except that by one clause it was agreed that the defendant had the right to sell the products of the farm, including the milk, receive the proceeds, and apply the money received on any indebtedness due him from the plaintiff. The action is brought to recover some $2,000 for services rendered, moneys wrongfully retained by defendant from the sale of farm products, and damages for failure to perform certain agreements of the contract. The defendant claimed that in February, 1911, all the accounts between himself’ and the plaintiff (except the account for milk and cream sold) were examined by them, and it was found and agreed between them that there was then due the defendant' from the plaintiff ■ $341.52; that subsequently the defendant sold produce from the farm of which the plaintiff’s share amounted to something more than $200, ■which amotuit the defendant credited npon the balance found due him upon the settlement; that the amounts received by defendant upon the sale of milt and cream were accounted for each month, and the amounts due the-plaintiff paid to him and retained by him without objection.
    The case was tried by the court without a jury and findings made in substance in full accordance with the defendant’s contention. By these findings it appeared that there was still due the defendant from the plaintiff a trifle more than $100, and judgment was rendered dismissing the complaint, from which the plaintiff appeals.
    
      J. J. Cunningham, for the appellant.
    Eor the respondent there was a brief by Jeffris, Mount, Oestreich & Avery, and oral argument by O. A. Oestreich.
    
   Winslow, O. J.

There was ample evidence in support of the findings of fact of the trial court, hence the judgment must be affirmed, unless there was some prejudicial error in the-'admission of evidence or other rulings on the trial, as a result of which some substantial right of the plaintiff has been affected.

. A number of rulings are attacked by the appellant as erroneous and substantially prejudicial, but after careful examination we do not deem any of these claims well founded or of sufficient importance to justify treatment in detail.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.  