Opinion
No. 24,619.
June 5, 1925.
Finding sustained that appellant was a partner.
Appeal found to be without merit.
1. See Appeal and Error, 4 C.J. p. 1019, § 3004.
Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis for work and labor. The case was tried before Reed, J., who ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. L.E. Macomber appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Robert M. Works, for appellant.
Frank E. Clinite, for respondent.
In this action to recover for certain job printing, judgment was ordered for plaintiff. Defendant Macomber alone moved for amended findings or a new trial and appeals from the order denying that motion. The only issue is whether he was a partner in an advertising venture. There is ample evidence to support the finding that he was, or at least that he held himself out, and permitted himself to be held out, to plaintiff as a partner.
The assignments of error challenging the exclusion of evidence have to do with testimony that, if admitted, could not have changed the result. That is made certain by the comment of the judge in ruling on the offer.
Order affirmed.