Action to abate an alleged nuisance. The parties to this action occupy residences situated upon adjoining lots in block 32, in Keeney & Devitt’s Second addition to thе city of Fargo. The alleged nuisance сonsists of a privy, which the defendant Susan A.
We are limited, by the rеcord presented on this appeаl, to a consideration of the single question whether the findings made by the trial court sustain the judgment appealed from. The issues of fact are not here for trial de novo. A statement of thе case is contained in the record which embraces all the evidence offered in the trial'court, but it contains neither a demand for a retrial of the entire case nor of any particular fact. Under these circumstances, we are without authority to retry all or any of the facts in issue. Bank v. Davis,
From an еxamination of the findings contained in the judgment rоll, it appears that the trial court exрressly found that the privy of which plaintiffs comрlain is not a nuisance. Such structures are common accessories to well ordеred residences, and are not nuisances per se. They may become so under some circumstances. But the question whether a privy is a nuisance is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence in each case. Douglas v. State, 4 Wis. 387; Smith v. Russ,