
    SHERWOOD, Appellant, v. HILL, Respondent.
    (166 N. W. 228.)
    (File No. 5158.
    Opinion filed February 5, 1918.)
    1. New Trial — Basis, Minutes of Court — Notice of Intention, Specification of Particulars In — Statute.
    Under Code Civ. Proe., Sec. 303, as amended by Laws 1913, Ch. 173, Sec. 2, concerning motions for new trial, notice of intention, where motion is 'based on minutes of the court, must contain specifications of particulars wherein evidence is alleged to he insufficient.
    2. New Trial — Specifications of Error in Record, Limit of, to Specifications in Notice of Intention — No Specifications, Effect.
    When record is settled for appeal and errors assigned, specifications therein cannot exceed, he broader, or other than as comprehended within specifications' in notice of intention; and where such notice contains no specifications of particulars concerning insufficiency of evidence, errors assigned based on such insufficiency cannot he considered on appeal.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Stanley County. Bon John F. "Hughes, Judge.
    Action by Fleta ÜVI. Sherwood, against Edward J. Hill. From a judgment for defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Johnson & Johnson, for Appellant.
    
      F. W. Lambert, for Respondent.
   McCOY, J.

Plaintiff brought this action against defendant to recover damages for alleged failure to construct a certain 'dwelling .house according to contract. There was verdict and judgment for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals. There was material conflict in the testimony, and appellant has not properly assigned the insufficiency of the evidence ¡to sustain the verdict as error. Motion for new trial was made upon the minutes of the court. Where the motion for new trial is based on the minutes of the court the specifications of particulars wherein the evidence is alleged to be insufficient must appear in the notice of intention. Section 303, C. C. P., as amended by chapter 173, § 2, Laws 1913. When the record is settled for appeal and errors assigned, the specifications therein contained cannot exceed or be broader or other than as comprehended -within 'specifications appearing in -the notice of 'intention.. In this case no specifications of pa-nt-iculars wherein the evidence was claimed to be insufficient to sustain the verdict appear in the notice of intention. Therefore errors assigned based upon the insufficiency of evidence cannot be considered. Assignments of error are made based on the rejection of' certain testimony, all of which assignments have been, considered, and we are of the opinion that no prejudicial error exists in relation thereto, and that it will serve no useful purpose to further refer to same.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment and order appealed- from are affirmed.  