
    Allan Smith, Appellant, v. Fannie A. V. Knight, Administratrix, Etc., et al.
    
    Appeal. Refusal to allow a credit claimed by plaintiff cannot be considered on appeal, where the evidence is not properly in the record.
    Same. A statement in appellee’s abstract, denying that the evidence set forth in appellant’s abstract was properly preserved or filed of record, and that appellant’s abstract and appellee’s amendment together contain all the evidence, will be taken as true where appellant does not reaffirm his original abstract.
    
      Appeal from Boone District Court. — Hon. B. P. Birdsall, Judge.
    Wednesday, October 13, 1897.
    This is a branch of the case of Smith v. Knight, which was determined in this court on May 18, 1893, wherein the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. 88 Iowa, 257. After the affirmance, an execution issued upon the judgment, and certain property of the appellant was levied upon thereunder. Appellant then brought this action by supplementary proceedings in the original case, asking to be entitled to certain credits upon the execution, and praying for an injunction restraining the sheriff from proceeding until such claimed credits were determined. An injunction issued as prayed. In the original action it was ordered that the defendants deed an undivided one-half of lot 11, in block 67, in Boone, Iowa, to the plaintiff, Allan Smith, and plaintiff was ordered to pay to defendants a sum there'n stated; and in default of a conveyance of the undivided one-ha’f of said lot to Smith the amount he was to pay the defendants was to be reduced to the extent of the value of the one-half of said lot.. Plaintiff in this proceeding seeks to have the value of the undivided one-half of said lot 11 credited on the execution against him. This relief the lower court refused, and plaintiff appeals.—
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      
      James O. Day and É. L. Penfteld for appellant. .
    
      Dyer S Stevens and B. F. Jordan for appellees.
   Kinne, C. J.

I. Appellees Rave filed a paper in wRieR they deny that tRe evidence set forth in appellant’s abstract was properly preserved or filed of record in tKis case, and deny that there is any evidence relating to the value of the undivided one-Ralf of lot 11, in block 67, Boone, Iowa, before this court, and deny that the appellant’s abstract and appellees’ amendment together contain all of the evidence. Appellant has not re-affirmed his original abstract, and therefore we must treat the statements in appellees’ abstract as being true. Not Raving all of the evidence before us, this case cannot be tried die novo.

II. Appellant has filed an assignment of errors, and we may therefore consider any question the determination of which is not dependent upon an examination of the evidence. Appellant claims a credit on the execution against him to the extent of the value of an undivided one-Ralf of lot 11. If it be conceded that in this proceeding Re would be entitled to such credit, still, before it could be given, the value of such interest must be shown. As we Rave already said, we Rave no evidence before us, and hence cannot siy that the court below erred in not allowing such credit on the execution. Whatever may be the merits of this case, we see no way, under the law, in view of the record, of granting relief. — Affirmed.  