
    Henderson v. Trimble, Adm’r.
    It devolves upon the party seeking a reversal to make out the alleged error. To enable him to do this, the record must show the ruling of the court which is complained of as erroneous, or a statement of all Hie material facts on which tho decision is founded.
    In the absence of a statement of the facts in some authentic form, wo are bound to presume, in Mtpport of the judgment, everything to have been proved which could legally bo proved under the issues. (Note 11.)
    To enable this court to revise a judgment, on the merits, tho facts of the case, tiiat is, all the material facts in evidence, must be embodied in the record.
    Error from Red River. The intestate. Garret in his lifetime moved the District Court for judgment against Amos Morrill for $1,000. money alleged to have been collected by the hitter as attorney-at-law of the former. Morrill answered, in substance, ! hat, the collection luid been made by him upon certain notes placed in Ins hands for collection by Henderson, to whom he had receipted for them; that Henderson claimed the money under a contract between him and Garrett, and that he had deposited the amount in New Orleans, subject to the order of the parties. Henderson filed a petition in the case, setting forth his contract with Garrett and the grounds on which he claimed to be entitled to the money, lie was afterwards made a party defendant; and Garrett having died pending the suit, Trimble as his administrator was made party plaintifi'. He put in issue the matters set forth in the petition of Henderson by a general denial, and the case was tried at the Fall Term, 1851. The entry' of the judgment contained the following: “ This day came the parties by their attorneys,' and by their consent this cause is submitted to the court without a jury; and after hearing evidence the court doth find for the said William Trim-ble, administrator as aforesaid, the sum of one thousand dollars, in his motion in this case mentioned against the said Amos Morrill, notwithstanding the matters and things contained in the said interplea of the said J. Pinkney Henderson and tlie evidence by him produced. It is therefore considered,” &c. The court proceeded to render judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant brought a writ of error.
    Note41. — Moor© v. Hardison, 10 T., 467; Francis v. Williams, 14 T.,. 158; Baldwin v. Dear-born, 21 T., 446; St. Glair v. McOtohee, 22 T., 5.; Smith v. Allen, 28 T., 407; Caldwell v. Brown, 43 T., 216,
    
      J. T. Mills and J. P. Hill, for plaintiff in error.
    
      W. Trimble, for defendant in error.
   Wheeler, J.

The record does not distinctly present any ruling of the court upon any question of law arising in the case, and there is no statement of the facts. The court decided the case by consent of botli parties upon both the law and fact. But what questions of law wore decided, what evidence was adduced by either party, or upon what state of facts the court gave its judgment does not appear. It devolves on the ’party seeking a reversal to make out the alleged error. To enable him to do this the record must show the ruling of the court which is complained of as erroneous or a statement of all the material facts on which the decision is founded. It is not enough that there may have been error committed. It must be shown that there is error, and, of consequence, in what it consists. Every presumption is to be indulged in favor of the judgment. In the absence of a statement of the facts in some authentic form we are bound lo presume in support of the judgment everything to have been proved which could legally be proved under the issues. Nothing can be more perfectly clear than that to enable this court to revise a judgment on the merits the facts of the case, that is, all the material facts in evidence, must be embodied in the record.

There may bo reason to apprehend that the law of the case has not been administered. But the record discloses no ground for reversing the judgment. It is therefore affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  