From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Craig v. Hesperia Land & Water Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jul 3, 1895
107 Cal. 675 (Cal. 1895)


         Department Two

         Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.


         Willis & Call, and H. A. Barclay, for Appellants.

          Graves, O'Melveny & Shankland, for Respondent.

         JUDGES: McFarland, J. Henshaw, J., and Temple, J., concurred.


          McFARLAND, Judge

         The court below granted a nonsuit, and judgment for defendant followed. Plaintiffs appeal, or have undertaken to appeal, from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial. Respondent has submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal on several grounds; but, under our views of the case, it is unnecessary to pass upon that motion.

         The main attack of appellants is upon the order granting the nonsuit. The only specification under the head of "errors of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by the appellants" is that "the court erred in granting defendant's motion for a nonsuit." But the record shows no exception taken to the order granting the motion for a nonsuit, and therefore that order cannot be here reviewed. The ruling of a trial court upon a motion for a nonsuit presents a question of law, and, as such, must be both excepted to and specified. (Malone v. Beardsley , 92 Cal. 150; Warner v. Darrow , 91 Cal. 309; Flashner v. Waldron , 86 Cal. 211; Schroeder v. Schmidt , 74 Cal. 459; Cravens v. Dewey , 13 Cal. 40.) And the exception must appear in the stating or substantive part of the bill of exceptions or statement; it is not sufficient that it be referred to in the assignment of the errors relied on, which counsel for appellants annex to bills of exception after the trial. The bill must show that the ruling thus assigned as error actually took place at the trial and was excepted to. (Braverman v. Fresno etc. Co ., 101 Cal. 644; People v. Faulke , 96 Cal. 17.)

         We think that the demurrer to the answer was properly overruled, and there are no other points to be discussed.

         Judgment and order affirmed.

Summaries of

Craig v. Hesperia Land & Water Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jul 3, 1895
107 Cal. 675 (Cal. 1895)
Case details for

Craig v. Hesperia Land & Water Co.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN W. CRAIG et al., Appellants, v. HESPERIA LAND AND WATER COMPANY…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 3, 1895


107 Cal. 675 (Cal. 1895)
40 P. 1057

Citing Cases

Stow v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty.

The action of the court in improperly granting or refusing a nonsuit is also an error of law, whether made…

Smith v. Superior Court

The motion to dismiss in the justice's court was, in effect, a motion for a nonsuit, and "the question…