
    CHRISTINA SPRIESTERBACH and Others v. GOTTFRIED SCHMIDT and Others.
    
    April 17, 1896.
    Nos. 9726—(24).
    
    Appeal — Return.
    Where, upon appeal to this court, the question to be determined depends-upon an issue of fact, there must be a settled ease or bill of exceptions, showing affirmatively that all the testimony pertaining to such issue is presented.
    In the matter of the estate of Gottfried Schmidt, deceased, Christina Spriesterbach and others appealed from a final decree of the probate court for Dakota county to the district court of said county. From a judgment of the district court affirming the decree of the probate court, entered in pursuance of the findings and order of Crosby, J., the appellants appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      John W. Lane, for appellants.
    
      Stringer (& Seymour, Hodgson <& Schaller, and Manalian Howard, for respondents.
    
      
       Reported in 66 N. W. 721.
    
    
      
       April, 1896, term.
    
   BUCK, J.

This cause comes to this court on appeal from the judgment entered in the district court of Dakota county. The only testimony submitted to this court in the return is a stipulation of the respective counsel of certain facts, and a copy of the will of Gottfried Schmidt, which it is claimed were introduced in evidence on the trial in. the district court. There is no settled case, no bill of exceptions, and no certificate attached to the record by the trial judge, showing that the return, or any part thereof, is true and correct, or that it contains all or any of the evidence. Under these circumstances, we cannot presume that there was error ,in the trial court in ordering judgment. Error must be made to appear affirmatively.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.  