This is an action brought for the purpose of reforming certain conveyances, and to recover certain lands which should have been properly described, but which by mistake were erroneously set out, therein. The plaintiff had *806judgment against' all the parties defendant, but only one of them, Williams, appeals therefrom, and from an order denying him a new trial.

The points made by the appellant are that the findings are not supported by the evidence, and that the court erred in its rulings upon the admission and exclusion of evidence. To us the findings appear to be fully sustained by the evidence. We have examined with care the various rulings of the court as to the exclusion or admission of proffered evidence, and find that tribunal either to have been right in its action, or that its rulings did not and could not have had the least effect upon the decision in the cause. The effort of Williams to retain the land, and the money for which he had sold it, and his refusal to convey it by the description which it was originally intended to have, appears to have been inspired by a supposition he seems to have entertained that in some way unexplained by the record he could keep the plaintiff out of his just rights.

There is no merit in the appeal, and the judgment and order should be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Hayne, C.

By the COURT.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment and order are affirmed.