Opinion
Department Two
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco refusing a new trial.
COUNSEL:
John F. Burris, for Appellant.
E. W. Blaney, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Hayne, C. Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred. McFarland, J., concurring.
OPINION
HAYNE, Judge
[16 P. 244] The plaintiff was nonsuited at the trial. He took no exception to the ruling, and the statement does not specify it as error.
An error in granting a nonsuit is an error in law, and should be excepted to and specified as such. (Donahue v. Gallavan , 43 Cal. 576; Cravens v. Dewey , 13 Cal. 42.) It cannot be reviewed on the ground that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the decision. This is a ground for the review of questions of fact, not of law.
There was no error in the ruling on the plaintiff's offer to prove what was intended by the bill of sale, or what was included in it. Such evidence was not admissible to contradict or add to the writing. And if it be said that the object was to show the situation of the property so as to explain the writing, the answer is, that the offer was too vague, and the ruling was proper on that ground alone. (Smith v. East Branch Co ., 54 Cal. 164.)
We therefore advise that the order denying a new trial be affirmed. The Court. -- For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the order denying a new trial is affirmed.
CONCUR
McFARLAND
McFarland, J., concurring. I concur in the judgment because no error appears which would warrant us in disturbing the judgment of the court below. But I am not prepared to say that on an appeal from an order denying a new trial, a final judgment, though following an order granting a nonsuit, may not be reviewed on a bill of exceptions containing the evidence and the rulings at the trial, even if there was no formal exception to the order granting the nonsuit.