ceptions does not contain all of the evidence the findings will not be disturbed. Bonton v. Grow, 1 N. W. Rep. 11; Hotel Co. v. Frederick, 1 N. W. Rep. 827; Turner v. Turner, 10 N. W. Rep. 545. Where findings are incomplete and insufficient, as defendant claims in this case, the remedy is by motion for more specific findings, and not by appeal. Foster v. Voightlander, 13 Pac. Rep. 777; State v. Graham, 36 N. W. Rep. 372; Englehart v. Rickert, 14 Minn. 140; Mast v. Lockwood, 17 N. W. Rep. 543. To obtain a review of the decision of a referee a motion for a new trial is necessary. Light v. Kennard, 7 N. W. Rep. 539; Reed v. Barnard, 40 Cal. 628.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Wallin, J. After the two actions entitled as above were at issue. they were consolidated by an order of the district court, and, without objection, were tried as a single action in equity for an accounting between partners. In the action first begun the complaint states in effect that plaintiff and defendant entered into a co-partnership and instituted a business as retail merchants and saloon-keepers, at Caledonia, on February 15, 1886, and that said firm continued in business until September 10, 1886, at which time it is alleged that the firm dissolved by mutual consent. It is further stated in the complaint that by agreement of the parties, reduced to writing, said defendant put into said concern as a part of her capital stock certain book accounts and notes. By the terms of said agreement it was stipulated that.any part of said book accounts and notes which might not be collected at the stipulated time at which the firm was to be dissolved, should be charged to the defendant. The complaint charged that when the firm dissolved (September 10, 1886), a part of said book accounts and notes of the face value of $566.79, was uncollected. Plaintiff demanded judgment for one-half of said sum, to-wit, for $283.39, with interest. Defend- ant answered the complaint, and admitted the formation and dis- solution of the firm at the time stated in the complaint, but specially denied that the dissolution of the firm was by mutual consent, and alleges that the same was forcibly dissolved by plaintiff to her damage in the sum of $500, which defendant pleads as a
