Cited by

Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , ; State ex rel.

Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , ; Union Central L. Ins.

Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , ; Elton v. Northwestern Nat.

The rule in Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375, 380 , , is thus stated: “But on an appeal from a judgment in an action tried without a jury, where there is neither a bill of exceptions, nor a settled case, the only question that can be raised is that the findings of fact by the trial judge do not support the judgment.

Defendants in their reply brief have cited authorities to that effect, as, for instance, Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , .

There the court quotes with approval the language used by this court in Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375, 380 , , as follows: “On an appeal from a judgment in an action tried without a jury, where there is neither a bill of exceptions, nor a settled case, the only question that can be raised is that the findings of fact by the trial judge do not support the judgment.

176 ; Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , 92 N.W.

Co. v. City of Hastings, 131 Minn. 249 , ; Gourd v. County of Morrison, 118 Minn. 294 , ; Pavelka v. Pavelka, 116 Minn. *363 75 , ; Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , ; Stevens v. Stevens, 82 Minn. 1 , ; Wheadon v. Mead, 71 Minn. 322 , ; Brigham v. Paul, 64 Minn. 95 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Stevens v. Stevens, 82 Minn. 1 , ; Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , ; and State ex rel.

Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , , and citations; State ex rel.

463 ; Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , 92 N.W.

In Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 (380), , the court said: “On an appeal from a judgment in an action tried without a jury, where there is neither a bill of exceptions, nor a settled case, the only question that can be raised is that the findings of fact by the trial judge do not support the judgment.

Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , .

Ahlberg v. Swedish-American Bank of Minneapolis, 51 Minn. 162 , ; Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , .

G. S. 1913, § 7831; Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , .

Smith v. Dennett, 15 Minn. *384 59 (81) Solomon v. Vinson, 31 Minn. 205 , ; Trebby v. Simmons, 38 Minn. 508 , ; Slater v. Olson, 83 Minn. 35 , ; Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , ; Kubesh v. Hanson, 93 Minn. 259 , .

Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , ; 1 Dunnell, Minn. Digest, § 345.

Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , .

here the question of the sufficiency of a pleading is first raised after judgment, it will be sustained if, by any reasonable inference or intendment, a cause of action or defense, as the case may be, can be spelled out of the matters alleged therein.” Smith v. Dennett, 15 Minn. 59 (81) ; Solomon v. Vinson, 31 Minn. 205 , ; Slater v. Olson, 83 Minn. 35 , ; Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , ; Halvorsen v. Orinoco Mining Co., 89 Minn. 470 , .

See Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , .

Peach v. Reed, 87 Minn. 375 , .