
    Raymond, Respondent, v. Spicer, Appellant.
    Appeal — Practice — Beeord — Bill of Exceptions.
    Where it is sought to review the trial of an issue of fact and no exceptions are brought into the judgment-roll by a bill of exceptions, case, or otherwise, the court will not examine the questions presented on a record agreed to 'by the parties, but will affirm the judgment from which the appeal is taken.
    (Argued and determined at the February Term, 1888.)
    APPEAL from the district court, Codington county; Hon. Bartlett Tripp, Judge.
    This was an action on the bond of a probate judge to recover certain money alleged to have been turned over to him as such •officer and that he had not accounted for. One of the sureties only appeared and he demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not.state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, to which he excepted. Leave was given him to answer, and he interposed a general denial. • There was a jury trial, and under tbe instructions of the court a verdict for the amount claimed was rendered for the plaintiff. After the denial. of a motion for a new trial and the entry of final judgment the defendant appealed. In this court he sought to review the action of the court below in overruling the demurrer, admitting evidence, instructing the jury and in denying the motion for a new trial. In the judgment-roll there was no statement, bill of exceptions or settlement of the case by the court or judge. Appended to the record brought up, however, was this stipulation signed by the attorneys of the respective parties. “ It is hereby stipulated that the foregoing is a true and correct abstract and statement of the within case, contains all of the evidence offered and received at the trial of said cause, and we agree that the same together with the pleadings and other papers filed with the clerk of the district court of said county in said cause be received and considered upon which to base an appeal to the supreme court of this territory.”
    
      I), tí. & W. R. Thomas, for appellant.
    
      Van Liew & Rowe, for respondent.
   J3y the Court :

No exceptions are contained in and made a part of the judgment-roll by case, bill, or otherwise, and no error appealing on the record the judgment is affirmed, following prior decisions of this court.

All of the justices concur.  