
    KATHERINE SCHULTZ v. HERMAN J. SCHNECKENBERGER.
    
    November 15, 1900.
    Nos. 12,428—(113).
    Verdict Sustained by Evidence.
    Evidence examined, and found to sustain the verdict.
    Language of Counsel — Exception—Appeal.
    In the absence of a request for a ruling or a ruling by the trial court, a mere exception to remarks of counsel before the jury does not present tlie question of their effect for review upon appeal. Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Oo., 49 Minn. 457, and other cases, followed.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hen-nepin county, Harrison, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
    Affirmed.
    
      George R. Smith, for appellant.
    
      Brady & Robertson, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 84 N. W. 119.
    
   LEWIS, J.

Action by plaintiff to recover $60, due for rent. Defense, payment in part. .Verdict for plaintiff. Appeal by defendant from an order denying Ms motion for a new trial.

There are two assignments of error requiring notice: First. Does the evidence support the verdict. Second. Misconduct of counsel for plaintiff in Ms argument to the jury.

1. We have read the evidence, and conclude that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.

2. It is unnecessary to consider the language of counsel referred to in the assignment. If it was worthy of any notice whatever on the part of the court, in the absence of a request for a ruling or any ruling, an exception is insufficient to raise the question as to its effect on appeal. Mykleby v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 49 Minn. 457, 52 N. W. 213, and cases cited.

Order affirmed.  