
    LAWRENCE ERICKSON v. W. D. MONTGOMERY.
    
    May 6, 1927.
    No. 25,475.
    No question reviewable because of absence of exception.
    
      Held-, Assignments of error raised no question reviewable on appeal since no exception was taken to rulings on evidence or charge to jury at trial or presented on motion for new trial, and assignment as to excessive verdict was within G. S. 1923,- § 9325, subd. 7, and point was not made in motion for new trial. [Reporter.]
    Appeal and Error, 3 C. J. p. 912 n. 92; p. 919 n. 34; p. 967 n. 42.
    Defendant appealed from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Salmon, J., denying his motion for a new trial.
    Affirmed.
    
      P. A. Cosgrove, for appellant.
    
      Brechet & Nelson, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 213 N. W. 919.
    
   PER CURIAM.

An action brought for the dissolution and accounting of a partnership, entered into for the purpose of publishing a directory, was tried to a jury and a verdict rendered for plaintiff in the sum of $1,381.93. The assignments of error raise no question reviewable here except the one whether the verdict is excessive, for no exceptions were preserved as to rulings on evidence or the charge at the trial, nor were any other properly made in the motion for a new trial. The action being based on contract, the assignment that the verdict is excessive comes under G. S. 1923, § 9325, subd. 7. If the jury took the view, as might be done under the evidence and the charge of the court to ,which there was no exception, that Hill’s salary of $2,200 was a fictitious expense or charge, the verdict is readily accounted for — plaintiff having drawn nothing, and defendant $480, and' the statement of the venture furnished plaintiff by defendant showing a net profit of $128.38.

The order is affirmed.  