
    (104 So. 288)
    ETHEREDGE v. TENNESSEE VALLEY BANK.
    (8 Div. 289.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    April 21, 1925.)
    1. Appeal and error <&wkey;l078(4)— Assignments of error in rulings on admission of testimony are waived, where not supported by authority.
    Assignments ■ of error in rulings on admission of testimony are waived, where brief contains no citation of authority nor proper argument to sustain contentions.
    2. Appeal and error <&wkey;907(4) — Findings presumed justified, where bill of exceptions does-not purport to contain all the evidence.
    Findings will be presumed sustained by evidence, where bill of exceptions fails to state that it contains all the evidence offered at trial.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence-County; James E. Horton, Jr., Judge.
    Claim suit between the Tennessee Valley Bank, plaintiff, and G. Etheredge, claimant. Judgment- for plaintiff, and claimant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    W. L. Chenault, of Russellville, for appellant.
    In view of the decision, it is not necessary that brief be here set out.
    C. M. Sherrod, of Courtland, for appellee.
    Where the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, the appellate court will presume any state -of facts to sustain the judgment. McGee v. Freeman, 212 Ala. 31, 101 So. 644.
   SAMFORD, J.

The first and second assignments of error, which go to the rulings-of the court upon the admission of testimony, are not supported by authority cited, and the argument of appellant’s counsel to sustain these assignments is:

“The first two assignments are based on rulings of the court on the admission of evidence in the case, and we respectfully insist that the court committed error against this appellant by holding against Mm in these rulings.”

This statement, of course, is of no aid to-the court in arriving at a decision of this case. The brief does not comply with the rule, and these two assignments are waived. Syllacauga L. Co. v. Hendrix, 103 Ala. 254, 15 So. 594; Sov. Camp W. O. W. v. Ballard, 19 Ala. App. 411, 97 So. 895.

The cause was tried before the court without the intervention of a jury, and the bill of exceptions fails to state that such bill contained all of tbe evidence offered on tbe trial. ' We must therefore presume in favor of the court's finding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain them.* American Trust Co. v. Hanna, 19 Ala. App. 301, 97 So. 154.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      ©=»For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests and Indexes
     