Stoddard

Action to quiet plaintiff’s title to the lands described in the complaint. The case was tried before the court, findings filed and judgment entered in favor of plaintiff. The court afterward granted defendants’ motion for a new trial, and from the order so made the plaintiff has appealed.

The order was general in its terms, and all presumptions are in its favor. This court will examine the entire record upon which the order was based, and if there be found in the record any error which would have justified the court in making the order it will be affirmed. (Baldwin v. Napa etc. Wine Co., 1 Cal. App. 215 , [ 81 Pac. 1037 ], and cases cited.) One of the grounds of the motion was the insufficiency of the evidence to justify certain material findings, and in such ease the motion is addressed to the discretion of the court below, and will not be reversed except it appears that there was an abuse of such discretion. (Bledsoe v. Decrow, 132 Cal. 314 , [ 64 Pac. 397 ]; Estate of Motz, 136 Cal. 560 , [ 69 Pac. 294 ]; Baldwin v. Napa etc. Co., supra.)

The record shows that prior to September 1, 1902, David FitzGibbon, deceased, was the owner and seised in fee simple of the property. That…