4. Insufficiency of Evidence—Specification of Particulars.
Sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict cannot be assailed in the supreme court when in neither the notice of intention to move for a new trial nor the bill of exceptions are the particulars specified wherein the evidence is alleged to be insufficient.
(Opinion Filed September 2, 1890.)
APPEAL from district court, Griggs county; Hon. Roderick Rose, Judge.
Messrs. E. J. & J. P. McMahon and J. E. Robinson, for appellants; A. C. Davis, for respondent.
Corliss, C. J. The plaintiff has been so far successful in her effort to recover the value of wheat unlawfully taken from her possession. The wheat in question was seized by the defendant Walden, as sheriff, under an attachment against Rozell Pickert, the father and general agent of the plaintiff. Defendant McMahon appears to have directed the seizure, acting as attorney for the plaintiff in the action in which the attachment was issued. Defendants do not pretend that they could or do justify under the attachment against plaintiff's father. They do not question plaintiff's ownership of the wheat, but they insist that their liability for the tort was settled by the plaintiff, through her alleged agent, Mr. White. It is against the charge of the trial court on the scope of his powers as agent that the first assignment of error is directed. The court, in substance, charged that the jury must find whether White was the general agent of plaintiff, and whether he had power to settle the plaintiffs cause of action for the conversion of her wheat. Certainly the defendant cannot complain of the submission to the jury of the question whether White was the general agent of the plaintiff. He derived all his authority from the father of plaintiff, who was plaintiff's general agent. There was nothing to show that the general agent could delegate his powers to White. The case is not brought within the provisions of § 4003, Comp. Laws, and any other delegation of power is forbidden by that section. White testified as to his authority as follows: "I have never seen the plaintiff. I was general superintendent of her farm and farming operations during part of the year 1887. All my dealings on the part of the plaintiff have been through her fa-
