
    DENTON, Appellant, v. BUTLER, Respondent.
    (158 N. W. 1017.)
    (File No. 3956.
    Opinion filed July 29, 1916.
    Rehearing denied October 4, 1916.)
    1. Appeals — Brief—Assignment of Error — Material Evidence Wanting — Statute.
    Where it does not appear that all material evidence received on trial is contained in appellant’s brief, an assignment of error that there is no evidence to justify the verdict, even if sufficient, will not he considered. Construing Laws 1913, Chap. 172.
    
      2. Appellant’s Insufficient Assignment of Error — “Errors of Daw”— Court Rule.
    Under Supreme Court'rule 5 (140 N. W. VIII), an assignment of error, “Errors of Law occurring at the trial,” does not present for review alleged error in sustaining an objection to a question asked during trial and argued in appellant’s brief.
    Appeal from- Circuit Court, Gregory Count}-. Hon. William William so N, Judge.
    Action by S. L. Denton, against S. E. Butler, to recover for plowing done. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Judgment and Order affirmed.
    
      TV. R. Butler, and TV. J. Hooper, for Appellant.
    
      M. L. Parish, for Respondent.
   GATES, J.

This case relates to an alleged agreement by a landlord to pay a tenant for some fall plowing* done by him. The jury found for the tenant. From the judgment and an order denying a new trial, -defendant appeals.

The -assignments of error are two, viz.: “(i) There is no evidence to justify the verdict; and (2) errors of law occurring at the -trial.”

Inasmuch as it does not -appear that all of the material evidence received upon the trial -is contained in appellant’s brief, the first assignment of error, even if it were sufficient, could not he considered. Chapter 172, Laws 1913; Supreme Court Rule 6 (140 N. W. viii); Gilfillan v. Schaller, 32 S. D. 638, 144 N. W. 133; Peterson v. Miller, 33 S. D. 397, 146 N. W. 585; Hepner v. Wheatley, 33 S. D. 34, 144 N. W. 923; Smith v. Pence, 33 S. D. 516, 146 N. W. 709; Davis v. Davis, 36 S. D. 336, 154 N. W. 799; State v. Carmel, 36 S. D. 293, 154 N. W. 808.

The alleged error in- sustaining an objection to a certain question asked during the trial and argued in appellant’s brief is not presented f-o-r review by assignment of error No. 2, supra. Supreme Court rule 5 (140 N. W. viii).

Finding noi error in the record, the judgment and order appealed from1 are affirmed.  