
    In re ROBERTS’ ESTATE.
    (168 N. W. 31.)
    (File No. 4300.
    Opinion filed June 11, 1918.)
    Appeals — Review—Brief, Failure to Show Either Settled Record or Judgment Roll, Affirmance — Statutes Applied — Presumption.
    Without determining whether questions on appeal were or not presentable upon mere judgment roll if authenticated under Raws 1913, Ch. 174, or whether presentable only upon settled record under Raws 1913, -Ch. 178, held, that brief-should have recited that there was a settled record embracing matter therein, or, in case of appeal on judgment roll,, containing such record, in which latter case Supreme Court would have presumed the record was properly authenticated; in absence of which showing, nothing appears for review.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County. Hbn. Thomas L. Bouck, Judge.
    In -tire matter of the estate of R. R. Roberts. Erom an order reversing allowance of -a oliaiim by ■Edmund P. Alien, Re1■cei-ver of the O. W. Kerr Company, plaintiff appeals..
    Affirmed!.
    
      Byron Abbott, anid Morphy, Bradford & Cummins, for Appellant.
    
      Andersen & Waddei, for Respondent.
   SMITH, J.

Respondent contends that appellant’s' brief is insufficient to authorize this court to- donsidier the assignments of errors therein- contained. In such Contention >we .-think respondent is -correct. Without determining -whether the questions sought to be raised' upon this appeal could be .presented upon a mere judgment roll dlf authenticated, as- provided in chapiter 174, Laws 1913, or whether they could -only be presented upon a settled record settled under chapter 978, Laws 1913, it is clear that, in the one case, there should have been a recital in the brief that there w’as a 'settled record, containing the record appearing in such brief, while, in the other case, there should ¡have been a statement -that there was- a judgment roll. containing the record! appearing in such (brief. With a statement that there was such, settled! record or judgment roil, .this court would have indulged the presumption that they were properly 'authenticated. Hepner v. Wheatley, 33 S. D. 34, 144 N. W. 923. There being nothing to show that there was either a settled. -record, ior even a judgment roll, upon which such appeal was ba-sed, there is nothing upon which this court could base a ruling u|poni the assignments of error.

The judgment and order olf the trial court are affirmed.  