
    BELLE C. NEIL, Respondent, v JOHN M. DANIEL, Appellant.
    Failure of Transcript to Siioiv Disposition of Motion for New Trial. Where a transcript on appeal does not show that the motion for a new trial was ever submitted to, or passed upon by, the court below, the judgment roll only will be looked into; and if no error appears in it, the judgment will be affirmed.
    Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Storey County.
    • This was an action to recover thirteen hundred dollars,- money alleged to have been received by defendant, as the agent of plaintiff, on the sale of certain Chollar-Potosi mining stock; and for which he had failed on demand to account. The defendant denied all the allegations of the complaint, and set up a counter claim in the sum of seventeen hundred and nineteen dollars, for so much money alleged to have been expended by him at her request, and for her use and benefit. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of twelve hundred and fifty dollars.
    The transcript contained merely the summons, complaint, answer, verdict, judgment, agreed statement on motion for new trial, bill of items of defendant’s counter claim, and certificate of the Clerk.
    
      J. S. Pitzer and Aldrich and De Long, for Appellant.
    
      Henry K. Mitchell, for Respondent.
   By the Court,

WHITMAN, J.

The transcript in this ease does not show that the motion for a new trial was ever submitted to, or passed upon by, the District Court. The appeal must therefore be decided upon the judgment roll. In that no error appears. Upon the agreed statement contained in the transcript we should come to the same conclusion.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.  