Porter

The action is in ejectment. From the judgment in favor of plaintiffs defendant has appealed on a bill of exceptions.

The only assignment of error is that the findings are not supported by the evidence, and respondents claim that this question should not be considered because of the insufficiency of the specification. The findings are challenged as follows: “The court erred in finding that on the first day of July, 1902, the plaintiffs were and for a long time prior thereto had been the owners in fee entitled to the possession and in the peaceful possession and occupancy of the lands and premises described in the complaint.” This is followed by a similár specification as to each of the other findings and then appellant proceeds to state what “the evidence shows.” In support of their position respondents cite Parker v. Reay, 76 Cal. 105 , [ 18 Pac. 124 ] ; Knott v. Peden, 84 Cal. 299 , [ 24 Pac. 160 ] ; De Molera v. Martin, 120 Cal. 544 , [ 52 Pac. 825 ] ; Kyle v. Craig, 125 Cal. 116 , [ 57 Pac. 791 ]; Taylor v. Bell, 128 Cal. 306 , [ 60 Pac. 853 ]. It must be admitted that in these cases the supreme court has construed in harmony with respondents’ contention the language: “must…