[1] Appeal—Findings—Insufficiency of Evidence—Specification. Where a bill of exceptions contains nothing which even purports to specify wherein the evidence fails to sustain any of the findings, the contention that the findings are not supported by the evidence cannot be considered.

[2] Fixtures'—Question of Fact—Intent.—Whether or not in any ease a building is permanently resting upon the soil so as to be deemed affixed to the land within the meaning of section 660 of the Civil Code remains a question of fact to be determined upon the evidence of that case, and, as a general rule, the intent of the parties is a controlling criterion.

[3] Id.—Structures Erected by Licensee — Ownership.—Where structures are erected upon land by a person who occupies the - land with the permission or license of the owner, but who has no estate in the land, consent on the part of the owner of the land that the structures shall remain the property of the person erecting them will be implied in the absence of any other facts or circumstances tending to show a different intention.

[4] Id.—Damages for Destruction—Place of Trial.—An action by a licensee to recover damages for the destruction of a dwelling and windmill erected by plaintiff on defendants’ land was not improperly brought and tried in the county where two of the defendants resided, which was not the county in which the land was situated, since the action was based upon plaintiff’s rights to the buildings as personal property.

[5] Id.—Liability of Employee of Land Owners.—An employee of land owners who joined with them in demolishing buildings with full knowledge that they belonged to and were the personal property of the plaintiff is liable for damages.

[6] Employer and Employee—Joint Tort—Liability.—In the prosecution of actions for canses ex delieto all persons concerned in the commission of the tort may be joined as defendants, or either or any of them may be sued severally, and where an employer and an employee have participated in a tortious act against a third person, they may be jointly sued for damages.

[7] Id.—Damages—Evidence—Cost of Removal of Destroyed Buildings.—In an action by a licensee to recover damages for the destruction of a dwelling and a windmill erected by him on land of defendants, where the agreement under which the buildings were erected required the plaintiff to remove the structures to his own land and the plaintiff sought to establish value merely -by proof of the cost of construction, it was error to refuse defendants permission to prove the cost of removal in mitigation of the damage.

2. Fixing character of property as realty or personalty, notes, 84 Am. St. Rep. 877; 1 Ann. Cas. 312.