
    CHARLES LINDGREN AND OTHERS v. W. H. BAILEY AND OTHERS.
    
    October 22, 1926.
    No. 25,540.
    Ground for new trial not mentioned in motion before trial court cannot be raised on appeal from older denying motion.
    ' Where a motion for a new trial is made on specific grounds not including the claim that the conclusions of law are not sustained by the findings of fact, such claim cannot be raised on an appeal from the order denying the motion. Holmstrom v. Barstad, 147 Minn. 172, followed.
    Appeal and Error, 3 C. J. p. 984 n. 17 New.
    Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover on an account stated. The case was tried before Fesler, J., who ordered judgment in favor of plaintiffs against defendant Bailey and in favor of interveners McCoy & Hansen. Plaintiffs appealed from an order denying their motion for a new trial as to interveners.
    Affirmed.
    
      Middaugh, Smythe & Wheeler, for appellants.
    
      McCoy é Hansen, for respondents.
    
      
       Reported in 210 N. W. 392.
    
   Wilson, C. J.

Plaintiffs made a contract with defendant Bailey in which they agreed to cut and land on the St. Louis river all timber such as sawlogs, fence posts, pulpwood, posts and ties from certain lands and to put all of such logs afloat in the main channel of the river. Plaintiffs brought an action to recover an indebtedness of $2,477.40 arising out of this transaction on. an account stated. A compromise settlement was made evidenced by a stipulation which included the execution and delivery of a $1,700 promissory note by defendant to plaintiffs. McCoy & Hansen, interpleaded as defendants herein, guaranteed tie note. Prior to tie stipulation defendant claimed tiat plaintiffs iad not performed tieir contract. By tie terms of tie stipulation tie action was ield pending performance of tie contract of settlement. Plaintiffs now seek to recover thereon. Tie court found tiat since tie making of tie settlement contract plaintiffs iad not strictly iut substantially performed it. Tie court allowed a recovery by plaintiffs against defendant Bailey upon tie note, but exonerated McCoy & Hansen from liability tiereon upon tie tieory tiat tie sureties iave a rigit to stand on tie precise terms of tieir contract. Tiis appeal is from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial as to McCoy & Hansen.

Tie motion for a new trial was based on tie claim tiat tie findings of fact were not justified by tie evidence and for errors of law occurring at tie trial. Tie sole question presented to tiis court is wietier or not tie conclusions of law are sustained by tie findings of fact. Tiis question was not presented to tie trial court in tie motion for a new trial. Hence it cannot be raised on appeal from suci order. Holmstrom v. Barstad, 147 Minn. 172, 179 N. W. 737.

Affirmed.  