Order Denying Net Trial—Review upon Appeal—Matters not Reviewable.—When there is no appeal from the judgment, and the appeal is solely from an order denying a new trial, neither the sufficiency of the complaint nor of a demurrer thereto, nor an order denying a nonsuit moved for on the ground of insufficiency of the complaint, nor the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment, nor any conflict therein, can be made the subject of review upon the appeal from such order.

Id.—Review op Evidence and Rulings—Grounds op Objection—Error must Appear.—The court may look into the bill of exceptions to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support the findings, and whether any prejudicial errors of law were committed at the trial. But error must be affirmatively made to appear; and when the grounds of an objection to a ruling are not stated, no reviewable error appears.

Id.—Failure to Find upon Material Issue—Decision Against Law. Any failure by the court to find upon a material issue is a decision against law, reviewable as such, upon a motion for a new trial, and upon appeal from the order denying the same. But, held, that no such failure appears in the record. [By supreme court on petition for hearing therein.]

Mortgage to Bank—Prior Pledge—Delivery for Foreclosure—Assignment by Insolvent Bank to Pledgee—Defense of Fraud Unsupported.—When a mortgage to a bank was pledged to its creditor, and redelivered to the bank for foreclosure, and the bank became insolvent pending suit, and assigned the note and mortgage upon a settlement absolutely to the pledgee, who was substituted as plaintiff, and a defense was set up that the assignment was a fraud upon the creditors of the bank, and upon defendants as such, held, that the defense of fraud is unsupported by the evidence, that none of the creditors of the bank were shown to be injured, and the assignment was in course of liquidation of the bank’s business with the presumed consent of the bank commissioners, who could not have regarded the mortgage as an asset of the bank in which its creditors were entitled to share.

Id.—Pledge op Note and Mortgage—"Things in Action”—Possession not Essential to Lien.—The note and mortgage held by the pledgee, being “things in action,” are subjects of lien without change of possession, and not being dependent upon possession, the redelivery of them to the bank for collection did not extinguish the Hen.

Id.—Eight op Bank to Sue as Owner Subject to Lien.—The bank to whom the note and mortgage were delivered by the pledgee had the right to sue thereon as owner thereof, subject to the Een, and was equally interested with the pledgee in enforcing collection thereof.

Ib.—Suit in Corporate Name as Payee—Pleading—Unnecessary Allegation.—The bank had the right to sue in its corporate name as payee of the note and mortgage, without the necessity of alleging intermediate assignments, or that the bank was in course of liquidation.

Id.—Authority op Bank to Assign Mortgage to Pledgee in Settlement Under Bank Commissioners’ Act.—The bank was not without authority under the bank commissioners’ act to make an absolute assignment of the note and mortgage, in settlement with the pledgee, whose interest accrued before the bank commissioners took charge of the bank, which was then a going concern in process of liquidation under the direction of the bank commissioners who had full knowledge of its affairs, and presumably approved of such settlement.

Id.—Parties—Joint Interest—Exclusive Interest op Pledgee by Assignment—Substitution.—When the suit was commenced, both the bank and its pledgee were interested in the cause of action, and either could sue upon it, and when the bank, which it was agreed should sue, assigned all of its interest to the pledgee, the latter, as full owner, was entitled to be substituted in the place of the bank as plaintiff.

Id.—Statute of Limitations.—The action having been properly com; meneed by the payee in joint interest with the pledgee, within the

, statute of limitations, the absolute assignment of all interest by the payee to the pledgee, and the substitution of the assignee as plaintiff, was not the commencement of a new action by the substitute, subject to the statute.

Id.—Leave to File Supplemental Complaint—Pleading op Assignment—Discretion—Facts Appearing in Proof.—The court did not abuse its discretion in granting leave to the substitute to file a supplemental complaint pleading the assignment, where no new material issue was presented, and all of the facts respecting the rights of the plaintiff, the pledge of the note and mortgage, the delivery of it for collection, and the assignment to the plaintiff, had already appeared in proof.